33S.(^ 


V.Z^ 


r* 


.  HISTORY 


OF   THE 


ORGANIZATION 


OF   THE 


Birfljoiiiiit  (E|ii0ro)ial  €\)\m\), 


SOUTH. 


BY    A.     H.     REDFORD,     D.D. 


Kasfibille,  Ktnn.: 
PUBLISHED  BY  A.  H.  REDFORD,  Agent, 

FOR  THE  M.  E.  CHURCH,  SOUTH. 
1871. 


Entered,  accordin;^  to  Aft  of  ContriPss.  in  tho  year  1871,  by 

A.    If.  ItKl.sroi;!).   Ar.KNT, 
in  tiie  office  of  tho  Libnn-ian  of  Coimif.'-s.  ;i(  ^Vashinf^on. 


STEREOTYPED   AND   PRINTED   AT    THE    SOUTHERN    METHODIST   PUBLISHING    HOUSE, 
NASHVILLE,    TENNESSEE. 


1^ 
0 

n 

CL. 
O 


TO     THE    MEMORY 


OF   THE 


THE     LATE     VENERABLE 

JOSHUA    SOULE,     D.D.;     JAMES     OSGOOD     ANDREW, 

D.D.;    WILLIAM   CAPERS,  D.D.;    AND  HENRY 

BIDLEMAN    BASCOM,    D.D.; 

THIS  VOLUME  IS  RESPECTFULLY  DEDICATED,  BY 


^ 

i  1^7062 


> 

*< 

^ 


PREFACE. 


More  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  has  elapsed  since  the 
organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
The  men  who  were  prominent  in  the  General  Conference  of 
1844,  the  extrajudicial  legislation  of  which  body  resulted 
in  the  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  into  two  separate  and  distinct  ecclesiastical 
organizations,  with  but  few  exceptions,  have  passed  away. 
The  names  of  Olin,  Bangs,  Finley,  Elliott,  Collins,  Han> 
line,  and  of  Bascom,  AVinans,  Longstreet,  Capers,  Smith, 
and  Fowler,  no  longer  appear  on  the  roll  of  the  Conferences 
where,  for  so  many  years,  they  were  the  bulwarks  of  the 
Church.  Bishop  Morris,  the  senior  Bishop  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  (North,)  alone  remains  of  the  men 
who  composed  the  College  of  Bishops  at  that  period.  No 
longer  able  to  go  in  and  out  before  his  brethren,  he  enjoys 
a  serene  old  age,  and  is  joyful  in  contemplation  of  the  heav- 
enly inheritance.  His  colleagues  have  passed  over  the 
river,  and  entered  upon  "  the  rest  that  remaineth  to  the  peo- 
ple of  God."  The  names  of  Hedding  and  Waugh  will  ever 
be  dear  to  the  memorv  of  IMethodism  in  the  North ;  while 
those  of  Soule  and  Andrew,  whose  graves  are  yet  damp 

(5) 


VI  PREFACE. 

M'ith  the  tears  of  tlic  Church,  v.ill  always  be  clierished  with 
a  sacred  fondness  by  the  IMethodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South. 

Since  the  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States,  a  ncAV  generation  has  come  upon  the 
scene,  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  circumstances  that  led 
to  the  separation.  The  object  of  this  work  is  to  place  in  a 
j^ermanent  and  enduring  form  the  proceedings  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1844,  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this  ques- 
tion, together  with  all  the  official  documents  and  papers 
necessary  to  a  full  understanding  of  the  reasons  by  which 
the  Southern  Delegates  in  that  body  were  governed  in  the 
declaration  they  made  that  "a  continuance  of  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  that  General  Conference  over  the  Conferences  they 
represented,  was  inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the  minis- 
try in  the  slaveholding  States." 

The  success  that  has  attended  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  since  it  became  an  independent  organization, 
is  cause  of  thanksgiving  to  Almighty  God.  The  approving 
smiles  of  Heaven*  have  rested  upon  it,  indicating  not  only 
the  propriety  but  the  necessity  of  the  separation. 

A.  H.  BEDFORD. 

Nashville,  Texn.,  April  4,  1871. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  General  Conference  of  1S44— The  Compromise-law  of  ISlC— The  peace- 
ful relations  under  this  law  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  portions 
of  the  Church — The  prosperity  of  the  Church — Occasional  agitations  on 
the  subject  of  Slavery — Petitions  to  the  General  Conference  of  1844— Com- 
mittee on  Slavery — The  Appeal  of  Francis  A.  Harding — Speech  of  Dr. 
Wm.  A.  Smith— Speech  of  John  A.  Collins— State  of  feeling  in  the  South 
— The  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  the  case  of  Harding  af- 
firmed—Sketch of  William  A.  Smith 9 

CHAPTER   II. 

The  influence  of  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  the  case  of  Fran- 
cis A.  Harding — Resolution  of  Drs.  Capers  and  Olin — Speeches  of  Drs. 
Olin  and  Diirbin — Committee  of  Pacification  appointed  —  Dr.  Durbin's 
resolution,  proposing  a  day  of  fasting,  humiliation,  and  prayer — The 
committee  fail  to  agree  on  any  plan  of  compromise — Resolution  of  Mi*. 
Collins  in  reference  to  Bishop  Andrew — Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Episcopacy — Bishop  Andrew's  statement — The  report  of  the  committee 
made  the  special  order  of  the  day  for  the  22d  of  May — Great  interest 
felt — Alfred  Griffith's  speech — Benjamin  M.  Drake's  motion  to  amend  the 
preamble — Bishop  Soule  addi'esses  the  Conference — Speeches  of  Peter 
P.  Sandford  and  Dr.  William  Winans— Speeches  of  Elias  Bowen  and  Dr. 
Lovick  Pierce — Speeches  of  Jerome  C.  Berryman,  Seymour  Coleman, 
Dr.  Smith,  and  Thomas  Stringfield — Sketch  of  Thomas  Stringfield — 
Speech  of  Thomas  Crowder — Sketch  of  Thomas  Crowder— Speech  of  Dr. 
Nathan  Bangs 148 

CHAPTER  III. 

Resolution  of  James  B.  Finley— Speech  of  Dr.  Olin— Speech  of  Benjamin 
M.  Drake — Speech  of  George  F.  Pierce— Speech  of  Jesse  T.  Peck — 
Speech  of  Bishop  Andrew— Bishop  Soule  addresses  the  Conference — 
Speech  of  Dr.  Capers — Address  from  the  Bishops — The  adoption  of  Mr. 
Finley's  Resolution 205 

CHAPTER   IV. 

The  effect  of  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  on  the  Church  in  the 
South — Notice  given  by  Dr.  Pierce  that  the  Southern  Delegates  would 
enter  their  Protest — Resolutions  offered  by  Henry  Slicer — Resolutions 
offered  by  Dr.  Capers — Referred  to  a  Coinmittee — Declaration  of  the 
Southern  Members— Dr.  Elliott  proposes  its  reference— Speech  of  Peter 
P.  Sandford— Reply  of  Dr.  Long.«*treet— Dr.  Olin's  Remarks— Declaration 
referred— Resolution  of  Instruction  to  the  CoTimittee— Protest  of  the 

(7) 


VUl  CONTENTS. 

3(iDority— Commanication  from  Bishops  Sonle,  Hedding,  Wangh,  and 
Morris — R*rply  of  the  Conference — Report  of  the  Committee  of  Xine — 
The  Report  dtJK:u»«ed — Its  adoption — ^The  Adjoarnment  of  the  General 
Conference 316 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Mfrenng  of  the  Southern  Delegates  in  Sew  York — Plan  of  action  reo- 
ommcndc-d  to  the  Annual  Conferenc'i^s — Their  Addre?«  to  the  memb*?rs 
of  the  Church  in  the  Slareholding  States  and  Territorieji — Excitement 
throughout  the  Church — Resolniions  adopted  in  Virginia,  in  Alabama,  in 
North  Carolina,  in  South  Carolina,  in  Georgia,  in  Loui$>iana,  in  Tfenne»- 
8€Ct  in  Kentucky — Dr.  Elliott  adrocate.-i  Division — The  action  of  the  »ct- 
eral  .Annual  Conferences — Bishop  ,lndre«r*s  position — Letter  from  Bii^bop 
Sonle  to  Bi5ihop  .\ndrew — Letter  from  Bishop  Soule  in  reply  to  Dr.  Bond 
— Communication  from  the  College  of  Bishops  » ^.~ 373 

CHAPTER   VI. 

Excitement  along  the  Border — ReT.  Joseph  8.  Tomliiuson,  D.D. — The  Mi- 
nerva Cjrcnit,  Kentucky  Conference — Convention  meets  in  Louisville, 
Kentucky,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1Mb — Of  wh^mi  composed — Bishops 
Soule,  .Andrew,  and  Morris  present — Bish"p  Soule'tt  address  to  the  Con- 
vention— Committee  appointed  to  consider  the  nece^tirity  of  a  Southern 
Organization — Resolutions  offered  by  Dr.  Winanis — B.  M.  Drake's  Reso- 
lution— Resolution  offered  by  Drs.  Smith  and  Pi^srce — Resolution  offered 
by  James  E.  Evans — Withdrawn — Dr.  Smith's  Resolution  adopted — Re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  Organization — Its  adoption — Resolutions  re- 
questing Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  to  unite  with  the  Methodist  Epiifco- 
pal  Chnrch,  Sonth— Reply  of  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew— Pa.«toral  Ad- 
dress— Adjournment  of  the  Convention— Border  Conferences. ~  413 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  first  General  Conference  of  the  Metho'ibt  Epii»eopal  Church,  Sonth — 
Bishops  Sonle  and  Andrew  present — Bi:«^hop  Sonle's  Communication — Re- 
ferred to  a  Committee — Report  of  Committee — Dr.  Pierce  appointed  Fra- 
ternal Messenger  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church — Dr.  Dixon  from  the  Briti-h  Conference,  Dr.  Richey,  and  Revs. 
J.  Ryerson  and  \.  Green  from  the  Canada  Conference — Fraternal  inter- 
course with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  CTlUrch,  Sonth,  declined  —  Dr. 
Pierce's  popularity  in  Pittthurgh — His  Report  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churcli,  Sontii,  in  1850— The  Property 
Question— The  I^awsuits — Decisions  in  favor  of  the  Methodif^t  Episcopal 
Church,  South— Position,  duty,  and  prospects  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  South- .- .- ~ 5(M 


APPENDIX. 

(A)  List  of  Delegates  of  the  Geneml  C^^nfference  of  18W — ~~..~~  Wl 

(P)  Action  of  the  Southern  Conferences  in  regard  to  the  Division  of  the 
Chnrch ~ ~ 5M 

(C)  Correspondence  Concerning  Union — ~ -~^.— 00 

(D)  Decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Uiuted  States — CU 


HISTORY  OF  THE  ORGANIZATION 


OF   THE 


M.  E.  CHURCH,  SOUTH. 


CHAPTER   I. 

The  General  Conference  of  1844 — The  Compromise-law  of 
1816 — The  peaceful  relations  under  this  law  between  the 
Northern  and  Southern  portions  of  the  Church — The 
prosperity  of  the  Church — Occasional  agitations  on  the 
subject  of  Slavery — Petitions  to  the  General  Conference 
of  1844 — Committee  on  Slavery — The  Appeal  of  Francis 
A.  Harding — Speech  of  Dr.  Wm.  A.  Smith — Sj^eech  of 
John  A.  Collins — State  of  feeling  in  the  South — The 
decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  the  case  of  Hard- 
ing affirmed — Sketch  of  William  A.  Smith. 

The  General  Conference  which  assembled  in  the 
city  of  New  York  in  1844,  on  the  first  day  of 
May,  will  be  ever  memorable  in  the  annals  of 
American  Methodism.  The  strength  and  influ- 
ence of  the  Church  represented  by  that  body — its 
1*  (?) 


10       -  Organisation  of  the 

territorial  extent  spreading  over  a  country  reach- 
ing from  British  America  on  the  North  to  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico  on  the  South,  and  from  the  Atlantic 
Ocean  on  the  East  to  the  very  verge  of  civihzation 
on  the  Western  frontier;  the  importance  of  the 
questions  which  occupied  the  attention  of  the 
Conference,  together  with  the  extrajudicial  legis- 
lation in  the  cases  of  Francis  A.  Harding,  an  appel- 
lant from  the  Baltimore  Conference,  and  Bishop 
James  0.  Andrew,  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  w^hich 
resulted  in  the  division  of  the  "  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States"  into  two  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  organizations,  invested  this  Gen- 
eral Conference  with  an  interest  and  importance 
that  cannot  be  claimed  for  any  session  that  pre- 
ceded it. 

From  the  time  of  the  oriranization  of  the  Meth- 
odist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  the  question 
of  slavery  had  occupied  the  attention  of  both 
Annual  and  General  Conferences.  In  1816,  a 
law  was  enacted,  known  as  the  Compromise-law 
of  the  Church,  on  this  subject,  which  declared 
slaveholders  ineligible  to  any  official  station  in  the 
Church,  where  "the  laws  of  the  State  in  w^hich 
they  live  will  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit 
the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom." 

From  1816  to  1844,  this  compromise-law  was 
recognized  by  the  Church,  and,  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  restless  persons  who  occasionally  appeared 


3L  K  Church,  South.  11 

on  the  tapiS;  no  clissatisftiction  was  expressed  either 
North  or  South.  While,  without  this  spirit  of 
accommodation,  it  would  have  been  impossible  for 
Methodism  to  obtain  a  foothold  in  the  South,  yet, 
under  it,  the  Church  had  grown  and  prospered. 
Between  the  two  sections  the  greatest  harmony 
prevailed,  each  rejoicing  in  the  prosperity  of  the 
other.  The  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  North  and 
South  was  one  history,  and  the  achievements  of 
the  Church  were  the  common  property  of  the  en- 
tire Connection. 

Under  this  compromise-law  the  General  Con- 
ference had  met  quadrennially  for  twenty-eight 
years,  enjoying  peace,  fraternal  confidence,  and 
Christian  love :  under  it,  the  Church,  North  and 
South,  East  and  West,  enjoyed  a  prosperity  and 
power  for  the  accomplishment  of  good,  and  attained 
to  a  position  occupied  by  no  other  body  of  Chris- 
tians on  this  continent.  The  light  of  her  counte- 
nance and  the  brightness  of  her  smiles  were  felt 
alike  in  homes  of  opulence  and  in  the  cottages  of 
the  poor,  and  from  hearts  gladdened  by  its  bless- 
ings, from  cabin  and  from  palace,  praises  were  con- 
tinually ascending  to  Heaven. 

The  General  Conference  of  1844  was  looked  to 
by  the  Church  with  feelings  of  uncommon  interest. 
During  the  quadrennial  term  that  preceded  it,  the 
increase  in  the  membership  had  been  greater  than 
during  any  four  years  previous,  and  the  impres- 


12  Orgcmization  of  the 

sioii  was  general,  if  not  universal,  that  the  session 
would  be  unusually  harmonious.  The  Southern 
portion  of  the  Church  was  willing  to  submit  to  the 
law  as  it  existed  and  had  been  executed,  and  it 
was  not  believed  that  the  North  desired  to  intro- 
duce any  new  terms  of  membership. 

At  no  period  since  the  introduction  of  Method- 
ism into  this  country,  had  so  great  a  calm  been 
enjoyed.  Scarcely  an  adverse  breeze  was  stir- 
ring. Christian  confidence  and  fraternal  intercourse 
pervaded  the  whole  Church.  It  was  the  calm, 
however,  that  precedes  the  tempest. 

The  question  of  slavery  and  abolition  had  been 
discussed  in  the  councils  of  the  nation,  and  politi- 
cal demagogues  w^ere  courting  political  preferment, 
by  appealing  to  the  prejudices  and  inflaming  the  pas- 
sions of  the  people  on  this  subject;  and  these  dis- 
cussions occasionally  disturbed  the  tranquillity  of 
the  Church.  It  Avas  not,  however,  believed  in  the 
South  that  there  would  be  any  serious  agitation 
in  the  General  Conference  of  this  or  kindred  ques- 
tions. 

Just  previous  to  the  convening  of  the  General 
Conference,  however,  petitions  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  were  gotten  up  in  several  of  the  Northern 
Conferences.  On  the  third  day  of  the  session,  a 
petition  from  the  Providence  Conference  was  pre- 
sented, which  called  at  once  to  the  floor  several 
members  of   the  body.      It  was  moved  by  Mr. 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  13 

Slicer,  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  "that  it  lie  on 
the  table  until  a  committee  should  be  appointed  to 
whom  to  refer  it."  To  this  Mr.  CrowJer,  of  Vir- 
ginia, objected,  and  called  for  its  reading.  In  this 
opinion  Mr.  Drake,  of  Mississippi,  concurred,  and 
the  motion  was  withdrawn,  and  the  memorial  was 
read. 

Mr.  Collins,  of  Baltimore,  then  moved  "that 
the  memorial  be  referred  to  a  committee  of  one 
from  each  Annual  Conference,  to  be  called  a  Com- 
mittee on  Slavery."  Dr.  Capers,  of  South  Caro- 
lina, objected  to  raising  any  such  committee,  as  well 
as  to  the  reference  of  the  memorial,  and  "moved 
that  the  motion  to  refer  lie  on  the  table."  This, 
however,  was  lost.  On  the  motion  to  raise  the 
committee,  a  spirited  debate  was  elicited,  in  which 
Mr.  Collins,  of  Baltimore,  Dr.  Capers,  of  South 
Carohna,  Mr.  Dow,  of  New  Hampshire,  and  Mr. 
Early,  of  Virginia,  took  a  part.  The  motion  to 
lay  on  the  table  was  lost,  and  the  memorial  was 
referred  to  a  committee  to  be  composed  of  one  from 
each  Annual  Conference. 

The  petition  from  the  Providence  Conference 
was  not  the  only  one  that  was  presented  and  re- 
ferred. New  England,  Maine,  New  Hampshire, 
Black  River,  Pittsburgh,  Bock  Biver,  Ohio,  and 
other  Conferences,  also  presented  petitions  on  the 
same  subject,  which  Avere  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Slavery.  "^ 


14  Organization  of  the 

On  the  6th  of  May,  Dr.  W.  A.  Smith,  of  Vir- 
ginia, offered  the  following  resolution : 

''Resolved,  That  the  committee  to  whom  the 
memorials  on  slavery  are  referred,  be,  and  hereby 
are,  requested  to  report  directly  on  the  points,  the 
alleged  facts  and  arguments,  subnutted  by  the 
memorialists,  and  present  their  report  as  soon  as 
practicable." 

Dr.  Smith  supported  this  resolution  by  a  speech 
remarkable  for  its  clearness  and  force,  eliciting  an 
animated  discussion,  in  which  Crandall  and  Adams, 
of  New  England,  Dow  and  Cass,  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, Slicer,  of  Baltimore,  and  Green,  of  Tennes- 
see, were  prominent. 

On  the  7th  of  May,  the  subject  of  slavery  came 
before  the  General  Conference  in  a  more  imposing 
form.  The  Rev.  Francis  A.  Harding,  a  member 
of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  had  become  con- 
nected by  marriage  with  slavery,  and  having  failed 
to  manumit  these  slaves,  had  been  suspended,  and 
had  appealed  from  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference.  The  case  had  been  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  with  the  fol- 
lowing result : 

"  The  committee  reported  that  Mr.  Harding 
had  become  possessed  of  five  slaves :  one  named 
Harry,  aged  fifty-two ;  one  woman,  named  Maria, 
aged  fifty;  one  man,  named  John,  aged  twenty- 
two;  a  girl,  named  ,  aged    thirteen;    and  a 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  15 

child,  aged  two  years;  and  recommended  the  fol- 
lowing preamble  and  resolution  for  adoption : 

"'Whereas,  the  Baltimore  Conference  cannot, 
and  will  not,  tolerate  slavery  in  any  of  its  mem- 
bers— 

"'Resolved,  That  Brother  Harding  be  required 
to  execute  a  deed  of  manumission,  and  have  the 
same  enrolled  in  the  proper  court,  and  give  to  this 
Conference,  during  this  present  session,  a  pledge 
that  this  shall  be  done  during  the  present  year/ 

"Brother  Harding  having  stated  the  impossi- 
bility, "with  his  views,  of  his  compliance  with  this 
resolution,  Mr.  Collins  moved  for  his  suspension 
until  he  gave  sufficient  assurance  of  his  compli- 
ance. 

"The  matter  was  again  referred  to  a  committee 
of  five,  for  farther  investigation,  who  reported 
that  they  had  entirely  failed  to  induce  Brother 
Harding  to  comply  with  the  wishes  of  the  Con- 
ference. 

"Brothers  Collins  and  Emory  moved  the  fol- 
lowing resolution,  which  Avas  adopted : 

"  'Resolved,  That  Brother  Harding  be  suspended 
until  the  next  Annual  Conference,  or  until  he  as- 
sures the  Episcopacy  that  he  has  taken  the  neces- 
sary steps  to  secure  the  freedom  of  his  slaves.'" 

Although  the  question  of  slavery  had  frequently 
been  brought  before  the  General  Conference,  yet 
on  no  previous  occasion  had  it  assumed  such  a 


16  Organization  of  the 

commanding  aspect  as  now.  The  Baltimore  Con- 
ference had  proAHously  acted  with  the  South  in 
resisting  the  encroachments  of  abolitionism,  and 
had  wielded  a  potent  influence  in  arresting  its 
tide.  The  action  of  that  body  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
Harding  had  been  extrajudicial,  and  from  their 
decision  he  had  very  properly  appealed  to  the 
General  Conference,  where  he  had  the  right  to 
expect  protection.  Bishop  Soule  was  in  the  chair 
when  the  appeal  was  presented,  and  remarked  that 
"the  question  will  arise,  according  to  the  Disci- 
pline, whether  the  General  Conference  will  admit 
this  appeal."  On  motion,  the  appeal  was  admitted, 
upon  which  Bishop  Soule  called  upon  the  appel- 
lant to  state  the  ground  of  his  appeal. 

The  discussion  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding  was 
quite  protracted.  It  commenced  on  the  7th  of 
May,  and  was  concluded  on  the  11th.  Dr.  Wil- 
liam A.  Smith,  of  Virginia,  conducted  the  appeal 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  Harding,  while  John  A.  Collins, 
of  Baltimore,  had  charge  of  the  case  on  the  part 
of  the  Baltimore  Conference. 

The  speeches  delivered  on  that  occasion  by 
these  distinguished  gentlemen,  were  equal  to  their 
reputation. 

The  speech  of  Dr.  Smith,  so  masterly  in  argu- 
ment, so  replete  with  proof,  and  so  overwhelm- 
ingly convincing,  merits  preservation.  Dr.  Smith 
said : 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  17 

I  appear  before  the  General  Conference,  at  the 
instance  of  the  appellant,  to  state  his  case  to  the 
best  of  my  ability.  In  entering  upon  this  duty, 
especially  as  the  case  involves  the  question  of 
slavery,  it  is  proper  that  I  should  make  some  pre- 
liminary remarks  personal  to  myself. 

I  am  aware,  from  the  use  that  has  been  made 
of  my  name  within  the  last  few  years  in  various 
journals,  in  different  sections  of  the  country,  it  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  I  entertain  personally 
hostile  feelings  toward  those  who  differ  from  me. 
I  Avish  to  disavow  it.  My  own  opinions  on  the 
subject  have  been  made  up  for  years.  But  these 
opinions  have  never  been  permitted  with  me,  so 
far  as  I  am  competent  to  understand  myself,  to 
originate  unchristian  feelings  to  any  honest  man 
who  differs  with  me.  I  have  always  held  myself 
to  be,  and  now  do,  an  antislavery  man — not, 
however,  an  abolitionist  in  any  sense  of  the  word. 
And  in  this  I  differ  not  from  my  Methodist  breth- 
ren in  the  ministry  and  out  of  it.  The  sense 
which  I  attach  to  antislavery  will,  in  the  course 
of  the  observations  I  shall  make  on  the  merits  of 
this  case,  be  explained.  In  the  present  case  I  do 
not  know  if  I  am  not  called  upon  to  represent  an 
abolitionist,  though  a  Southern  man  myself.  I  do 
not  symbolize  with  the  brother  on  the  subject  of 
slavery.  I  differ  with  him  almost  as  widely  as  I 
do  from  any  abolitionist,  North  or  East.    And  I  do, 


18  Organization  of  the 

sir,  with  the  more  cheerfulness  enter  upon  the 
defense  of  this  case,  being  actuated  by  a  sense  of 
justice,  because  I  believe,  whatever  may  have 
been  the  design,  (and  I  have  not  a  solitary  doubt 
that  the  design  was  a  good  one,)  this  brother  has 
been  wronged,  and  deeply  w^ronged,  by  the  de- 
cision in  his  case. 

I  learn  from  the  journals  of  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference, and  from  his  ow^n  statement,  that  he 
entered  as  a  probationer  in  the  ministry  in  1839, 
and  in  1843  was  ordained,  in  the  regular  course, 
an  Elder  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  On 
the  8th  of  February,  in  1844,  he  became  connected 
by  marriage  with  Miss  Swan,  in  the  State  of 
Maryland.  At  the  session  of  the  Conference  in 
March  last  he  was  called  up  for  examination,  and 
from  the  journal  of  that  body  I  learn  his  Presiding 
Elder  stated  that,  by  his  late  marriage,  he  had 
become  connected  with  slavery.  The  Conference 
appointed  a  committee  to  investigate  the  subject. 
That  committee  reported.  Their  report  you  have 
heard  read;  it  requires  him  to  pledge  himself  that, 
during  the  year,  he  would  execute  a  deed  securing 
to  the  slaves  their  liberty.  These  slaves  belonged 
to  his  w^ife  by  the  demise  of  her  parents.  Let 
that  be  distinctly  remembered.  I  understand  that 
Brother  Harding,  for  specific  reasons,  refused  to 
comply  with  the  decision  of  the  Conference.  It  is 
due  to  him  to  state,  that  I  could  have  wished  the 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  19 

journals  of  the  Conference  had  been  kept  as  the 
rule  requires  they  should  be  kept;  that  all  the 
questions  and  all  the  answers  put  to  the  accused 
had  been  matter  of  record.  This,  however,  is  not 
the  case.  The  proceedings  of  the  Conference 
alone,  so  far  as  regards  the  resolutions  moved  and 
adopted,  make  up  the  journals  of  that  Conference, 
and  by  consequence  we  have  not  the  legal,  au- 
thorized testimony,  required  by  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline. I  must,  therefore,  sir,  rely  for  the  facts 
that  are  important  to  a  due  consideration  of  this 
case,  upon  the  correct  and  honest  memory  of  the 
representatives  of  the  Baltimore  Conference.  I 
therefore  say  that  if,  in  relating  any  thing  of  im- 
portance, not  on  the  records  of  the  Conference,  I 
should  be  found  in  their  judgment  in  error — for  it 
is  not  my  purpose  to  misrepresent  the  history  of 
this  case — they  will  point  out  the  error.  I  under- 
stand from  the  individual  himself,  and  from  some 
members  of  that  Conference,  that  when  the  decision 
was  read,  he  refused  at  once  to  comply  with 
the  demand  of  the  Conference  on  the  following 
grounds  : — 

First.  That  by  the  nature  of  the  laws  of  the 
State  of  Maryland  he  did  not  become  the  owner 
of  the  slaves.  They  were  held  by  his  wife  by 
descent  from  her  parents,  and  that  he  had  there- 
fore no  right  to  execute  the  deed  required  by  tho 
Conference. 


20  Organisation  of  the 

Secondly.  That  if  it  were  not  so,  the  laws  of 
the  State  of  Maryland  do  not  permit  the  liberated 
slave  to  enjoy  liberty,  and  that,  therefore,  under 
the  rule  of  Discipline,  he  was  not  required  to 
comply  with  the  condition.  He  maintained,  there- 
fore, that  the  pledge  was  impracticable,  and  con- 
trary to  the  rule  of  Discipline;  and,  thirdly,  that 
it  would  be  in  its  practical  results  inhuman. 
And  why  ?  Because  the  demand,  if  carried  out 
by  him,  without  the  consent  of  these  slaves,  would 
separate  parents  from  children  and  other  friends, 
which,  without  their  consent,  he,  as  a  conscientious 
man,  could  not  consent  to  do. 

But  while  he  thus  refused  a  compliance  with 
the  proposed  condition,  he  ncA^ertheless  tendered 
to  the  Conference  the  following  pledge,  in  his  own 
name  and  that  of  his  wife,  that  he  would  have 
them  removed  to  the  colony  in  Africa,  or  to  any 
free  State  in  the  Union,  where  they  might  be  per- 
mitted to  enjoy  their  freedom,  at  any  time  w^hen 
he  could  do  so  with  their  consent.  But  pledge 
himself  to  fulfill  the  condition  made  by  the  Con- 
ference, with  or  without  their  consent,  and  thus 
sever  the  dearest  ties  on  earth,  he,  as  a  humane 
and  conscientious  man,  could  not  consent  to  do. 
I  am  now  relating  what  the  journals  of  the  Balti- 
more Conference  should  have  shown.  Let  the 
Conference  understand  that  I  am  repeating  the 
pledges  made  by  this  brother  in  my  OAvn  language; 


If.  E.  Church,  South.  21 

but  I  submit  it  to  the  delegation  whether  I  give 
substantially  the  pledges  he  gave.  If  not,  cor- 
rect me  on  the  spot,  and  do  not  leave  me  to  labor 
in  the  dark. 

Mr.  Griffith.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  he 
gave  a  pledge  to  remove  them  to  any  free  State. 
I  have  no  recollection  of  such  a  pledge.  If  ten- 
dered, it  would  have  been  accepted,  as  perfectly 
satisfactory. 

Mr.  Gere.  Brother  Griffith  may  not  have  heard 
the  pledge,  but  he  did,  more  than  once,  make  that 
pledge  in  the  presence  of  the  Conference. 

Mr.  Collins.  I  attended  to  this  case  with  great 
particularity,  and  had  something  to  do  with  it.  If 
Brother  Harding  ever  made  such  a  pledge,  it  did 
not  reach  my  ears.  And  when  he  said  that,  with 
the  consent  of  his  wife  and  the  slaves,  he  would 
send  them  to  Liberia,  I  asked  him  if  that  consent 
could  be  obtained,  and  he  answered  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  Gere.  Brother  Collins  is  correct  in  saying 
that  consent  could  not  be  obtained;  but  I  clearly 
recollect  the  point  spoken  to.  He  would  have 
preferred  sending  them  to  Liberia;  but  when  the 
Conference  desired  it,  he  said  he  would  permit 
them  to  go  to  any  free  State. 

Mr.  Slicer.  I  have  no  recollection  of  his  agree- 
ing to  their  going  to  a  free  State ;  but  I  do  dis- 
tinctly recollect  that  he  put  the  issue  of  their 
freedom  on  their  consent  to  go  to  Liberia. 


22  Organization  of  the 

Mr.  Collins.  On  the  basis  of  two  ifs.  If  his 
wife  and  if  his  slaves  consented,  neither  of 
which  could  he  promise  for. 

Mr.  Davis.  What  is  stated  by  Brother  Slicer 
is  correct.  He  did  say,  that  if  these  colored  per- 
sons were  willing  to  go  to  Liberia,  and  if  his  wife 
would  consent,  he  should  be  willing  that  they 
should  go. 

Dr.  Smith.  Brother  Gere,  do  3''ou  recollect 
distinctly  whether  Brother  Harding  said  as  you 
have  stated  ? 

Mr.  Gere.  I  think  those  were  the  words,  to 
the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Mr.  Drake  said  he  thought  oral  testimony  ought 
not  to  be  taken. 

Bishop  Soule.  I  have  admitted  it  at  Brother 
Smith's  instance. 

Dr.  Smith.  What  redress  would  there  be  with- 
out this?  The  laws  require  that  the  Annual  Con- 
ference shall  keep  a  record  of  every  question  and, 
answer,  both  great  and  small.  Has  that  been 
done? 

Mr.  Collins.  This  small  matter  may  be  disposed 
of  at  once.  Brother  Harding  admitted  the  fact. 
We  wanted  no  testimony,  and  we  took  none. 
Brother  Harding  was  testimony  against  himself. 

Bishop  Soule.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  you 
have  no  other  proper  testimony  but  what  is  pre- 
sented to  you  in  those  journals;  that  there  was 


M.  E,  Churclu  South,  23 


not  a  witness  called — no  testimony  given.  You 
have  heard  the  whole  of  the  matter  so  far  as  it  is 
on  the  records,  and  it  is,  I  presume,  to  supply  this 
defectiveness  that  he  calls  for  those  points  from 
the  delegates. 

A  memher  made  some  observation,  and  Bishop 
Soule  answered  that  Dr.  Smith  would  call  for  any 
witness  he  might  want. 

Dr.  Smith.  I  do  not  know,  sir,  that  I  would 
care  to  meet  every  member  of  this  Conference  on 
the  subject.  I  know  that  it  is  not  admissible,  but 
still  I  have,  myself,  no  particular  objection  to  it. 
I  feel  obliged  by  the  reference  made  to  Discipline. 
What  is  the  meaning  of  Discipline?  That  your 
journal  should  contain  every  thing — 

Mr.  Collins.     It  does. 

Dr.  Smith  (emphatically).  Stick  a  peg  there. 
A  resolution  is  passed  at  the  Baltimore  Conference, 
requiring  the  appellant  to  submit  to  certain  condi- 
tions. He  refuses.  Does  the  journal  state  under 
what  circumstances  ?  And  do  not  the  merits  of  the 
case  rest  on  the  circumstances?  Why,  sir,  the 
course  pursued  shows  that  the  matter  rests  just 
there.  One  says,  if  Mr.  Harding  had  refused  with 
such  a  declaration,  there  would  have  been  no  dis- 
pute about  it.  In  the  judgment  of  all  who  had 
taken  any  interest  in  the  merits  of  this  case,  it 
turned  on  the  manner  and  circumstances  of  his 
refusal.     Then  why  not  record  it?     It  proves  a 


24  Organization  of  the 

defectiveness  in  the  journal.  Upon  that  journal 
we  rely  for  the  prosecution,  and  they  upon  it  for 
the  defense.  But  behold  you,  sir,  on  the  very 
point  at  issue  it  is  silent!  Who  shall  suffer  the 
wrong  here?  The  appellant  or  the  Baltimore 
Conference?  Who  are  in  the  wrong  that  the 
journal  is  thus  defective?  I  leave  it  to  this  Con- 
ference to  decide,  every  man  in  his  own  mind.  I 
am,  sir,  entitled  to  the  oral  testimony  in  the  ab- 
sence of  the  correct  record  which  it  was  the  duty 
of  that  Annual  Conference  to  furnish  us  with.  And 
that  testimony  goes  to  sustain  us.  What  is  the 
testimony?  "I  clearly  remember,"  says  Brother 
Gere,  "as  clearly  as  if  I  had  heard  it  this  morn- 
ing, that  Brother  Harding  said,  over  and  over 
again,  that  with  the  consent  of  the  servants,  he 
stood  pledged,  and  pledged  his  wife,  to  send  them 
to  Liberia;  or,  with  their  consent,  to  let  them  go 
to  any  free  State  in  the  Union." 

Mr.  Collins.  If  you  understood  his  wife  to  be 
pledged,  you  are  certainly  mistaken. 

Mr.  Gere,  on  being  appealed  to,  said  that,  as 
distinctly  as  he  could  remember,  the  words  were, 
"I  pledge  on  my  own  behalf,  and  that  of  my 
wife,  that,  if  they  consent,  they  shall  go  to  a  free 
State." 

Mr.  Hildt.  I  think  Brother  Gere  must  be  mis- 
taken. Conference  was  deeply  interested  in  this 
subject,  and  I  think   every  member  would  pay 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  25 

attention;  and  I  do  not  recollect  that  Mr.  Har- 
ding at  any  time  said  that  he  was  willing,  with 
the  consent  of  his  wife,  that  the  slaves  should  go 
to  a  free  State. 

Dr.  Smith.  Well,  if  there  were  twenty  present 
w^ho  did  not  hear  it,  that  is  no  proof  that  it  did  not 
take  place.  Brother  Collins  was  involved  in  the 
matter,  and  the  other  brethren  had  their  feelings 
warmly  enlisted,  and  it  is  no  wonder  that  they 
did  not  hear  all  that  Brother  Harding  said  on  this 
subject.  I  think  you  will  fmd  that  they  were 
so  enlisted  to  carry  out  their  own  purposes — 
honest  as  they  felt  they  were — that  they  urged  the 
brother  to  comply  with  their  condition,  intending 
to  investigate  the  propriety  of  it  hereafter.  You 
cannot  suppose  they  would  take  a  course  of  this 
kind  unless  their  feelings  were  excited,  and  so 
excited  that  they  did  not  hear  what  is  in  the  clear 
and  distinct  remembrance  of  the  brother  himself, 
and  of  many  more,  if  we  had  them  all  here.  Others 
not  recollecting  it,  is  no  proof  that  it  did  not  take 
place.  But  I  have  positive  proof  that  he  did  make 
this  declaration.  Its  not  appearing  on  the  record 
is  not  our  fliult,  but  the  fault  of  the  Conference, 
and  we  are  entitled  to  the  positive  testimony.  I 
shall,  therefore,  assume  that  Brother  Harding  said, 
that,  with  the  consent  of  these  servants,  they 
should  be  sent  to  any  State  where  they  could 
enjoy  their  freedom.     The  Conference,  however. 


26  Organization  of  the 

we  learn,  adopted  the  report  of  the  committee, 
notwithstanding  the  pledges  given  by  Mr.  Harding 
— a  report  binding  him  to  make  the  required 
pledge  of  manumission.  Near  the  close  of  the 
Conference  his  case  was  called  up,  and  he  again 
required  to  comply  with  the  decision  of  the  Con- 
ference. He  again  refused.  At  this  stage  of  the 
proceedings  Brother  Steele  moved  a  resolution  to 
locate  him.  This  was  ruled  out.  (No,  from  Mr. 
Collins.) 

Mr.  Harding.  There  was  a  resolution  proposed 
by  Brother  Steele  to  have  me  located,  and  it  was 
ruled  out  by  the  President. 

Dr.  Smith.     And  ruled  out  by  the  President? 

Mr.  Collins.     I  think  it  was  withdrawn. 

Mr.  Harding.  Brother  Steele  made  the  mo- 
tion, and  Bishop  Waugh  ruled  it  out. 

Mr.  Sargent.  I  was  not  the  Secretary  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference  at  the  last  session,  but  I 
had  a  seat  adjoining  Brother  Steele  when  he  made 
the  motion  to  locate  him.  He  did  withdraw  the 
motion,  and  at  my  suggestion. 

Dr.  Bangs.  It  must  be  very  unpleasant  to  the 
speaker  to  be  interrupted,  but  I  wish  to  speak  to 
a  point  of  order  in  reference  to  oral  testimony. 
Must  not  the  speaker  confine  himself  to  the 
record?  If  the  journal  is  not  complete,  the  case 
can  be  quashed  or  nonsuited,  and  sent  back.  It 
is  competent  for  him  to  make  that  appeal,  but  I 


M,  E,  Churchy  South.  27 

insist  that  it  is  not  in  order  to  travel  out  of  the 
record. 

Dr.  Smith.  I  could  not  show  that  the  record 
is  incomplete  without  reference  to  oral  testi- 
mony. 

Mr.  Early.  What  brother  cannot  see  that  he 
is  opening  and  amplifying  his  case  ?  Will  not  the 
Baltimore  Conference  have  the  right  to  do  the 
same  in  reply?  Are  you  constantly  to  stop  him, 
and  confine  him  to  the  record?  Permit  them  both 
to  amplify,  and  let  them  correct  him  at  the  proper 
time. 

Bishop  Soule.  I  should^  not  have  permitted 
one  of  these  queries  to  be  put  only  at  the  instance 
of  the  speaker,  who  requested  at  the  outset,  that, 
if  he  erred,  the  dele2:ation  would  set  him  risrht  on 
the  spot,  to  save  time  and  labor  in  the  premises. 

Dr.  Smith.  Well,  sir,  by  the  testimony  of  the 
brethren,  a  resolution  was  moved  to  locate,  which, 
by  suggestion,  was  withdrawn.  I  wish  the  Con- 
ference not  to  forget  that;  it  may  appear  that  this 
point  has  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  final  issue. 
Brother  Collins  then  moved  the  suspension  of  the 
appellant,  and  Brother  Slicer  moved  for  a  committee 
farther  to  investigate  the  case.  The  committee  was 
appointed.  They  met,  and  appellant  appeared 
before  that  committee,  and  submited  the  following 
paper  from  William  D.  Merrick,  of  Maryland, 
United  States  Senator  from  the  first  Congressional 


28  Organkation  of  the 

District,  touching  the  legal  points  involved  in  the 
case: 

"At  the  request  of  Mr.  Harding,  I  have  to  state 
that,  under  the  laAVS  of  Maryland,  no  slave  can  be 
emancii^ated  to  remain  in  that  State,  nor  unless 
provision  be  made  by  the  person  emancipating  him 
for  his  removal  from  the  State,  which  removal 
must  take  place,  unless  for  good  and  sufficient 
reason  the  competent  authorities  grant  permission 
to  the  manumitted  slave  to  remain. 

"There  has  lately  (winter  of  1843)  been  a  stat- 
ute enacted  by  the  State  Legislature,  securing  to 
married  females  the  property  (slaves  of  course 
included)  which  was  theirs  at  the  time  of  their 
marriage,  and  protecting  it  from  the  power  and 
liabilities  of  their  husbands. 

(Signed)  "Wm.  D.  Merrick." 

This  was  read  before  the  committee,  but  they 
w^ere  so  occupied  in  "laboring"  with  the  brother, 
to  bring  him  to  terms  of  submission,  that  it  seems 
they  entirely  overlooked  the  oj)inion  of  this  gen- 
tleman, and  laying  aside  the  legal  view  which 
illustrated  the  whole  case,  proceeded  to  make  up 
their  report,  saying  that  they  had  failed  to  reduce 
the  brother  to  terms,  though  the  record  shows 
that  they  were  appointed  to  investigate  the  case. 
Yet  they  report  about  bringing  him  to  terms. 
The  Conference,  then,  on  motion  of  Brothers  Col- 
lins and  Emory,  resolved  to  suspend  the  appellant 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  29 

from  his  ministerial  standing  until  the  next  session 
of  Conference,  or  such  time  as  he  should  give  satis- 
faction to  the  Episcopacy  that  he  had  secured  the 
manumission  of  the  slaves.  From  this  decision, 
sir,  Brother  Plarding  gave  notice  of  his  intention 
to  appeal,  and  is  now  before  the  General  Confer- 
ence in  prosecution  of  his  design.  I  have  thus 
gone  through  the  statement  of  the  case  as  I  find 
it  in  the  journals,  and  from  oral  testimony,  because 
of  the  defectiveness  of  the  journal  itself. 

The  ground  on  which  I  rest  this  appeal  is  briefly 
this : 

First.  The  appellant  violated  no  rule  of  Dis- 
cipline in  refusing  to  comply  with  the  condition 
of  the  Baltimore  Conference.  Secondly.  But  on 
the  contrary,  the  rule  of  the  Church  makes  pro- 
vision in  his  fivor.  Thirdly.  And,  therefore,  his 
suspension  is  unauthorized,  and  should  be  re- 
versed. 

If  it  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Conference  for  me 
to  proceed  in  the  investigation  of  this  subject,  I 
propose  to  do  so;  but  if  they  think  it  would  be 
more  in  order  for  the  defense  to  respond,  I  am 
ready  and  willing  to  give  place  that  they  may  do 
so.  I  do  not  wish  to  forestall,  and  ask  no  right 
more  than  to  state  the  case,  and  the  grounds  of 
our  appeal. 

Mr.  Morgan  said,  in  reference  to  Mr.  Gere's 
statement,  that  there  had  been  two  cases  before 


30  Organization  of  the 

the  Baltimore  Conference  involving  the  question 
of  slavery — those  of  Mr.  Harding  and  Mr.  Hans- 
berger.  Mr.  Harding  did  consent  to  send  his 
slaves  to  Liberia,  if  their  consent  and  that  of  his 
wife  could  be  obtained ;  but  the  other  was  willing 
to  emancipate  his,  provided  certain  arrangements 
could  be  made. 

Dr.  Smith.  The  ground  we  take  is,  that  the 
appellant  violated  no  rule  of  Discipline;  on  the 
contrary,  the  rules  of  the  Church  make  provision 
in  his  favor,  and,  therefore,  his  suspension  by  the 
Baltimore  Conference  is  unauthorized,  and  should 
be  reversed.  Because,  under  the  law  of  Mary- 
land, in  which  State  he  married,  he  did  not  come, 
by  his  marriage,  to  be  the  owner  of  the  property 
which  fell  to  his  wife.  As,  therefore,  he  was  not 
the  owner  of  a  single  slave,  he  could  not  manumit 
one.  The  Conference  required  an  impossibility. 
In  proof  thereof  I  will  read  an  opinion  of  Judge 
Key.  I  suppose  that  this  Conference  would  have 
no  hesitation  about  receiving  the  opinion  of  that 
gentleman.     He  says: 

'^The  Reverend  Mr.  Harding  having  married 
Miss  Swan,  who,  at  the  time  of  her  marriage,  was 
entitled  to  some  slaves,  I  am  requested  to  say, 
whether  he  can  legally  manumit  them  or  not? 
By  an  act  of  Assembly,  no  person  can  manumit  a 
slave  in  Maryland;  and  by  another  act  of  our 
Assembly,  a  husband  has  no  other  or  flirther  right 


M.  E,  Church  South,  31 


to  his  wife's  slaves  than  their  labor,  while  he  lives. 
He  can  neither  sell  nor  liberate  them.  Neither 
can  he  and  his  wife,  either  jointly  or  separately, 
manumit  her  slaves,  by  deed,  or  otherwise.  A 
reference  to  the  Acts  of  Assembly  of  Maryland 
will  show  this.  Edmund  Key. 

"Prince  George  county,  April  25,  1844." 

I  w^ould  also  refer  to  the  Laws  of  the  State  of 
Maryland,  Chap.  293: 

"  Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  hy  the  General  Assemhl?/ 
of  Maryland^  That  from  and  after  the  passage  of 
this  act,  any  married  woman  may  become  seized 
or  possessed  of  any  property,  real  or  of  slaA^es,  by 
direct  bequest,  demise,  gift,  purchase,  or  distribu- 
tion, in  her  own  name,  and  as  of  her  own  proper- 
ty; provided,  the  same  does  not  come  from  her 
husband  after  covertitre." 

Now,  sir,  by  this  late  act  of  Maryland,  a  wo- 
man can  become  an  owner  of  property  in  her  own 
name,  though  married. 

'^  Sec.  2.  And  he  it  enacted.  That  hereafter,  w^hen 
any  woman  possessed  of  a  property  in  slaves  shall 
marry,  her  property  in  such  slaves,  and  their  natu- 
ral increase,  shall  continue  to  her,  notwithstanding 
her  coverture,  and  she  shall  have,  hold,  and  pos- 
sess the  same  as  her  separate  property,  exempt 
from  any  liability  for  the  debts  or  contracts  of  the 
husband." 

Now,  from  this  section,  we  perceive  that  the 


32  Organization  of  the 

property  of  a  woman  does  not  pass  to  the  hus- 
band, as  by  the  original  law,  and  as  is  probably 
the  case  in  other  States  of  the  Union. 

"Sec.  3.  And  he  it  enacted,  That  when  any 
woman  during  coverture  shall  become  entitled  to, 
or  possessed  of  slaves,  by  conveyance,  gift,  in- 
heritance, distribution,  or  otherwise,  such  slaves, 
together  with  their  natural  increase,  shall  inure 
and  belons:  to  the  wife  in  like  manner  as  is  above 
provided  as  to  slaves  which  she  may  possess  at 
the  time  of  marriage. 

"Sec.  4.  And  he  it  enacted,  That  the  control  and 
management  of  all  such  slaves,  the  direction  of 
their  labor,  and  the  receipts  of  the  productions 
thereof,  shall  remain  to  the  husband  agreeably  to 
the  laws  heretofore  in  force.  AH  suits  to  recover 
the  property  or  possession  of  such  slaves  shall  be 
prosecuted  or  defended,  as  the  case  may  be,  in 
the  joint  names  of  the  husband  and  wife;  in  case 
of  the  death  of  the  wife,  such  slaves  shall  descend 
and  go  to  her  children  and  their  descendants,  sub- 
ject to  the  use  of  the  husband  during  life,  without 
liability  to  his  creditors;  and  if  she  die  without 
leavinor  children  livins:,  or  descendants  of  such 
children  living,  they  shall  descend  and  go  to  the 
husband." 

From  these  we  learn  that,  were  a  husband, 
marrying  a  woman  with  slaves,  to  manumit  those 
slaves,   any  person  who  might  inherit  property 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  33 

from  his  wife  might  make  him  pay  for  every  one 
so  manumitted,  because  of  the  injury  done  to 
them  by  such  an  act  of  manumission. 

"Sec.  5.  Be  it  enacted,  That  the  slaves  owned 
by  a  feme-covert  under  the  provisions  of  this  act, 
may  be  sold  by  the  joint  deed  of  the  husband  and 
wife,  executed,  proved,  and  recorded  agreeably  to 
the  laws  now  in  force  in  regard  to  the  conveyance 
of  real  estate  o^  feme-coverts,  and  not  otherwise. 

"Sec.  6.  And  he  it  enacted,  That  a  wife  shall 
have  a  right  to  make  a  will  and  give  all  her  pro- 
perty or  any  part  thereof  to  her  husband,  and  to 
other  persons  with  the  consent  of  the  husband 
subscribed  to  said  will ;  provided  always,  that  the 
wife  shall  have  been  privately  examined  by  the 
witnesses  to  her  will,  apart  and  out  of  the  pres- 
ence and  hearing  of  her  husband,  whether  she 
doth  make  the  same  w^ill  freely  and  voluntarily, 
and  without  being  induced  thereto  by  fear  or 
threats  of  or  ill  usage  by  said  husband,  and  says 
she  does  it  willingly  and  freely;  provided,  that 
no  will  ujider  this  act  shall  be  A^alid  unless  made 
at  least  sixty  days  before  the  death  of  the  testa- 
trix." 

It  is  perfectly  manifest  that  the  opinion  of  Judge 
Key  is  correct,  and  that  the  appellant  in  this  case 
did  not  possess  the  right  of  property  in  any  one 
of  these  five  slaves  that  his  wife  held  by  the  de- 
mise of  her  parents.  The  Baltimore  Conference 
2* 


34  Organization  of  the 

said,  "Manumit  your  slaves,"  thus  requiring  that 
appellant  to  dispose  of  property  that  did  not  be- 
long to  him;  to  set  at  liberty  those  in  whom  he 
had  no  right,  and  over  whom  he  had  no  control 
whatever.  Why,  they  might  with  equal  propriety 
tell  him  to  unhorse  the  first  Methodist  minister  he 
found  on  the  highway,  and  turn  the  horse  loose 
beyond  the  power  of  his  proper  owner,  or  to  manu- 
mit the  slaves  of  every  man  in  the  State  as  a 
condition  of  holding  his  membership  in  their  body. 
Mr.  Harding  had  as  much  right  to  the  horse,  bri- 
dle, and  saddle-bags  of  his  brethren  as  to  the  slaves 
in  question,  and  just  as  much  right  to  every  slave 
in  the  State  as  to  these,  and  could  with  as  much 
propriety  execute  a  deed  of  manumission  on  their 
behalf.  I  say,  then,  that  without  doubt  the  Balti- 
more Conference  required  of  him  to  do  that  which 
it  was  impossible  for  him  to  do.  I  am  at  a  loss  to 
know  how  that  Conference  could  commit  such  an 
error.  It  really  is  so  marvelous  that  I  am  utterly 
at  a  loss  to  account  for  it. 

Secondly.  If  the  doctrine  I  have  just  laid  down 
could  in  any  sense  be  held  as  doubtful,  though  I 
cannot  see  how  it  can  possibly  be  so  held,  and  it 
should  therefore  be  said  that  he  had  property  in 
the  slaves  of  his  wife,  then  the  rule  of  Discipline, 
Sec.  10,  pages  209,  210,  makes  provision  in  his 
favor. 

"We  declare  that  we  are  as  much  as  ever  con- 


M,  E,  Churchy  South,  35 

vinced  of  the  great  evil  of  slavery:  therefore  no 
slaveholder  shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  station 
in  our  Church  hereafter,  where  the  laws  of  the 
State  in  which  he  lives  Avill  admit  of  emancipa- 
tion, and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  free- 
dom." 

Now  we  maintain  that,  under  this  provisional 
exception  to  the  general  rule  of  our  Church,  he 
was  not  required  to  manumit  these  slaves,  because 
he  could  not  legally  effect  that  manumission,  even 
if  they  belonged  to  him,  in  that  State.  Such  also 
is  expressly  the  meaning  of  the  second  answer : 

"When  any  traveling  preacher  becomes  an 
owner  of  a  slave  or  slaves,  by  any  means,  he  shall 
forfeit  his  ministerial  character  in  our  Church, 
unless  he  execute,  if  it  be  practicable,  a  legal 
emancipation  of  such  slaves,  conformably  to  the 
laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives." 

This  is  a  different  phraseology  expressing  the 
same  idea,  and  has  been  so  decided  by  the  General 
Conference.  A  legal  emancipation !  What  is  the 
common-sense  meaning  of  this?  Such  an  eman- 
cipation as  will  put  the  slave  in  possession  of  his 
freedom  in  that  State.  Now  could  the  appellant 
give  them  such  liberty?  I  hold  in  my  hand  an 
extract  from  the  Laws  of  Maryland  on  this  sub- 
ject, from  "Dorsey's  Laws  of  Maryland,"  in  1831. 

''And  he  it  enacted^  That  it  shall  hereafter  be 
the  duty  of  every  clerk  of  a  county  in  this  State, 


36  Organization  of  the 

"whenever  a  deed  of  manumission  shall  be  left  in 
his  office  for  record,  and  of  every  register  of  wills 
in  every  county  of  this  State,  whenever  a  will 
manumitting  a  slave  or  slaves  shall  be  admitted 
to  probate,  to  send,  w^ithin  five  days  thereafter, 
(under  a  penalty  of  ten  dollars  for  each  and  every 
omission  so  to  do,  to  be  recovered  before  any  jus- 
tice of  the  peace,  one-half  whereof  shall  go  to  the 
informer,  and  the  other  half  to  the  State,)  an  ex- 
tract from  such  deed  or  will,  stating  the  names, 
number,  and  ages  of  the  slave  or  slaves  so  manu- 
mitted, a  list  wdiereof,  in  the  case  of  the  Avill  so 
proved,  shall  be  filed  therewith  by  the  executor 
or  administrator,  to  the  Board  of  Managers  for 
Maryland  for  removing  the  people  of  color  of  said 
State;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  Board,  on 
receiving  the  same,  to  notify  the  American  Coloni- 
zation Society,  or  the  Maryland  State  Colonization 
Society,  thereof,  and  to  propose  to  such  Society 
that  they  shall  engage,  at  the  expense  of  said 
Society,  to  remove  said  slave  or  slaves  so  manu- 
mitted to  Liberia;  and  if  the  said  Society  shall  so 
engage,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  Board 
of  Managers  to  have  the  said  slave  or  slaves  de- 
livered to  the  agent  of  such  Society,  at  such  place 
as  the  said  Society  shall  appoint  for  receiving  such 
slave  or  slaves,  for  the  purpose  of  such  removal, 
at  such  time  as  the  said  Society  shall  appoint;,  and 
in  case  the  said  Society  shall  refuse  so  to  receive 


M,  K  Church,  South.  37 

and  remove  the  person  or  persons  so  manumitted 
and  offered,  or  in  case  the  said  person  or  persons 
shall  refuse  so  to  be  removed,  then  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  said  Board  of  Managers  to  remove  the 
said  person  or  persons  to  such  other  place  or  places 
beyond  the  limits  of  this  State  as  the  said  Board 
shall  approve  of,  and  the  said  person  or  persons 
shall  be  willing  to  go  to,  and  provide  for  their  re- 
ception and  support  such  place  or  places  as  the 
Board  may  think  necessary,  until  they  shall  be 
able  to  provide  for  themselves,  out  of  any  money 
that  may  be  earned  by  their  hire,  or  may  be 
otherwise  provided  for  that  purpose;  and  in  case 
the  said  person  or  persons  shall  refuse  to  be  re- 
moved to  any  place,  beyond  the  limits  of  this 
State,  and  shall  persist  in  remaining  therein,  then 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  Board  to  inform  the 
sheriff  of  the  county  wherein  such  person  or  per- 
sons may  be,  of  such  refusal,  and  it  shall  there- 
upon be  the  duty  of  said  sheriff  forthwith  to 
arrest,  or  cause  to  be  arrested,  the  said  person  or 
persons  so  refusing  to  emigrate  from  this  State, 
and  transport  the  said  person  or  persons  beyond 
the  limits  of  this  State;  and  all  slaves  shall  be 
cnpable  of  receiving  manumission  for  the  purpose 
of  removal  as  aforesaid,  w^ith  their  consent,  of 
whatever  age,  any  law  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing."    (Chnp.  281,  Sec.  3.) 

We  find  a  supplement  to  this  law  in  1832. 


38  Organization  of  the 

"Chap.  145,  Sec.  1. — Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Gen- 
eral Assemhhj  of  Maryland^  That  whenever  the 
Board  of  Managers,  appointed  under  the  act  to 
which  this  is  a  supplement,  shall  inform  the  sheriff 
of  any  county  of  the  refusal  to  remove  any  per- 
son or  persons  therein  mentioned,  and  shall  pro- 
vide a  sum  sufficient  to  defray  the  removal  of  said 
person  or  persons  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State, 
every  sheriff  then  failing  to  comply,  within  the 
term  of  one  month,  w^ith  the  duties  prescribed  in  the 
third  section  of  the  act  aforesaid,  shall  forfeit  fifty 
dollars  for  every  person  he  shall  neglect  so  to  re- 
move, to  be  recoverable  in  the  County  Court  of 
his  county  by  action  of  debt  on  indictment. 

"Sec.  2.  And  he  it  enacted^  That  nothing  herein 
contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal  any  part  of 
the  act  to  which  this  is  a  supplement." 

The  foregoing  is  a  copy,  corrected  by  myself, 
from  the  acts  referred  to,  as  published  in  "Dorsey's 
Laws  of  Maryland."  George  H.  Moore, 

Ass't  Librarian  N.  Y.  Hist.  Society. 

May  6,  1844. 

Now  from  these  laws  it  is  perfectly  manifest 
that  if  there  be  a  State  to  which  the  provisional 
exception  of  the  Discipline  applies,  it  is  the  State 
of  Maryland.  The  laws  of  Virginia  are  not  by 
any  means  so  strict.  The  brethren  from  Virginia 
will  agree  with  me,  that  they  are  by  no  means  so 
strict.     And  no  one  can  read  these  laws  without 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  39 

concluding  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  manumit 
slaves  there,  so  that  they  can  enjoy  their  liberty 
there;  that  it  is  indeed  impossible,  so  far  as  the 
laws  of  the  State  are  concerned.  And  if  they 
are  free  there,  it  is  because  the  laws  of  the  State 
are  not  executed.  It  will  be  remembered,  that  it 
was  in  conformity  with  the  law  of  the  State  that 
this  brother  stated  his  readiness  to  make  a  pledge; 
and  the  issue  is  that  he  would  not  pledge  himself 
to  do  that  which  the  laws  forbade  him  to  do,  while 
he  was  willing  to  do  what  the  laws  of  the  State 
allowed,  provided  the  slaves  had  belonged  to  him. 
This,  then,  is  the  issue  between  the  appellant  and 
the  Baltimore  Conference.  He  stated  that  he  was 
ready  to  do  that  which  the  law  provided  for  under 
the  circumstances.  The  question  will  be,  in  the 
mind  of  every  candid  hearer,  shall  the  vote  of  this 
General  Conference  side  with  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference in  demanding  from  this  brother  that  he 
should  suhmit  to  their  conditions  without  authority 
from  the  rules  of  the  Church,  in  the  face  of  the 
very  laws  of  that  State  that  gave  him  birth,  and 
afforded  him  protection  in  his  rights  and  privi- 
leges ?  Or,  shall  their  decision  be  in  fjivor  of  the 
appellant,  who  stated  that  he  was  ready,  and  did 
pledge  himself  to  fulfill  the  only  condition  in  his 
power,  by  sending  the  slaves  to  Liberia,  or  to  re- 
move them  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State? 

The  third  point  in  the  general  argument  is,  this 


40  Organization  of  the 

construction  of  the  Discipline  has  akeady  receiA^ed 
the  sanction  of  the  General  Conference.  I  allude 
to  the  case  of  the  "Westmoreland  local  preachers 
four  years  ago.  The  Conference  will  bear  in  mind 
that  certain  members  of  our  Church  in  the  State 
of  Virginia  appealed  over  and  over  again  to  the 
Baltimore  Conference,  as  licensed  local  preachers, 
for  ordination.  The  Baltimore  Conference  as 
often  responded,  "We  will  not  ordain  you,  because 
you  hold  slaves."  The  applicants  said,  as  citizens 
of  Virginia,  they  w^ere  not  bound  to  give  up  their 
slaves,  because  the  laws  of  their  State  would  not 
allow^  them  to  enjo}^  freedom;  therefore  they  could 
not  actually  give  them  freedom,  and  that  this 
clause  of  Discipline  made  provision  for  their  case. 
The  Baltimore  Conference  maintained  a  different 
doctrine,  as  you  very  well  know.  The  discussion 
w^as  painfully  protracted.  It  involved  a  great 
deal  of  feeling  w^ithin  the  bounds  of  the  Balti- 
more Conference.  The  complainants  first  wxnt  to 
the  General  Conference  at  Cincinnati  in  1836,  and 
asked  to  be  united  to  the  Virginia  Conference,  but 
the  Baltimore  friends  opposed.  They  were  clever 
fellows,  and  could  not  be  spared,  though,  according 
to  the  doctrines  held  by  the  Baltimore  Conference, 
they  were  practically  sinners.  But  now  they 
were  very  clever  fellows!  I  know,  sir,  that  an 
unworthy  motive  could  not  ent.er  the  bosom  of  the 
members  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  on  a  subject 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  41 

of  the  kind;  but  because  of  the  unfortunate  and 
unfriendly  aspect  of  the  case,  it  was  believed  in 
Virginia,  much  to  the  discredit  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  that  it  was  because  of  the  loaves  and 
fishes.  Well,  sir,  failing  in  their  application  to  the 
Cincinnati  Conference  of  1836,  they  came  up  to 
the  General  Conference  at  Baltimore  in  1840,  and 
asked  them  to  vindicate  their  rights  by  settling 
this  issue.  The  General  Conference  referred  the 
memorial  to  an  able  committee,  of  which  Dr.  Bas- 
com  was  chairman — a  committee  fully  competent 
to  respond  to  the  memorial.  Their  report  was 
submitted  to  the  General  Conference,  and  adopted 
by  them.  The  whole  of  it  has  been  published. 
It  contains  an  able  and  conclusive  argument  vindi- 
cating the  construction  put  upon  the  clause  of  the 
Discipline  by  the  memorialists,  and  concludes  with 
the  followins;  resolution: 

'^Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  An- 
nual Conferences,  in  General  Conference  assem- 
bled. That  under  the  provisional  exception  of  the 
general  rule  of  the  Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
the  simple  holding  of  slaves,  or  mere  oAvnership 
of  slave  property,  in  States  or  Territories  where 
the  laws  do  not  admit  of  emancipation,  and  per- 
mit the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  consti- 
tutes no  legal  barrier  to  the  election  or  ordination 
of  ministers  to  the  various  grades  of  office  known 
in  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 


42  Organization  of  the 

and  cannot,  therefore,  be  considered  as  operating 
any  forfeiture  of  right  in  view  of  such  election  or 
ordination." 

This,  sir,  was  adopted  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence. And  if  language  can  settle  any  point  on 
earth,  the  language  of  this  resolution  goes  to  set- 
tle the  construction  we  have  put  on  this  rule  of 
Discipline,  viz.,  that  the  brethren  holding  slaves 
in  those  States  that  do  not  permit  the  liberated 
slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  are  not,  under  the  Dis- 
cipline of  our  Church,  required  to  emancipate  their 
slaves. 

Now,  sir,  I  beg  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Conference  to  this  point.  This  action  of  the 
General  Conference  was  intended  finally  to  settle 
the  long-contested  issue  between  the  Baltimore 
Conference  and  certain  members  of  the  Church, 
and  does  it  not  settle  it  fairly  and  unequivocally? 
I  appeal  to  this  Conference,  if  it  were  to  be  looked 
for  that  an  Annual  Conference,  cherishing  due  re- 
spect for  the  decisions  of  the  General  Conference, 
should  proceed  within  four  years  after  the  passage 
of  this  very  resolution  to  trample  it  under  their 
feet,  and  act  on  another  construction  of  the  rule 
of  Discipline,  defining  the  terms  of  membership, 
and  thus  throw  overboard  one  of  their  own  body  ? 
Was  this  to  be  expected  ?  So  far  as  I  feel  myself 
entitled  to  any  judgment  in  this  matter,  I  say  it 
was  not !     The  act  was  wrong,  and  we  had  a  right, 


M,  E,  Church,  South.  43 

under  the  circumstances,  to  expect  that  the  Balti- 
more Conference  would  not  thus  have  disregarded 
the  decision  of  the  General  Conference.  I  take 
it  upon  me  to  say,  that  the  decision  referred  to 
settled  that  point;  and  the  appellant  was  not  re- 
quired under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Maryland, 
and  under  that  decision  upon  our  laws  of  Disci- 
pline, to  manumit  these  slaves,  because  the  act 
would  not  secure  their  freedom.  I  need  not  stop 
to  notice,  that,  though  that  law  was  passed,  and 
that  rej)ort  and  resolution  adopted  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  they  have 
never  ordained  these  men. 

Mr.  Collins.  That's  the  fact.  It  was  no  law; 
it  was  only  a  resolution. 

Dr.  Smith.  We  maintain,  therefore,  that  the 
refusal  to  comply  with  the  demand  of  the  Balti- 
more Conference  was  no  violation  of  the  rules  of 
Discipline;  and  also,  that,  as  a  conscientious  and 
humane  man,  Mr.  Harding  could  do  no  more  than 
he  proposed  to  do.  It  is  admitted  by  all  the  dele- 
gation that  he  was  ready  to  send  every  one  of 
these  slaves,  with  their  consent,  to  Liberia.  What 
more  could  he  do,  as  a  humane  man?  Should  he 
send  them  there  without  their  consent?  Should 
he  separate  parents  and  children,  and  their  friends, 
without  their  consent,  and  compel  them  to  find 
refuge  in  the  bosom  of  Africa?  Should  he  have 
done  so?     He  w\as  willing  so  to  do,  with  their 


44  Organkaiion  of  the 

consent,  and  I  ask  what  more  could  humanity  ask 
or  Christianity  require?  Let  me  at  this  point 
briefly  examine  the  requisitions  made  upon  him. 
They  wanted  him  to  hold  two  of  the  slaves  in 
perpetual  bondage.  Did  you  mark  that?  Yes! 
the  decision  of  that  Conference  required  him  to 
hold  two  of  the  slaves  in  perpetual  bondage — one 
till  he  w^as  twenty-eight,  and  two  till  they  were 
twenty-three!  Now,  sir,  I  beg  leave  to  ask  what 
Eastern  man,  consistently  with  his  principles,  can 
vote  to  sustain  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  this 
instance?  Stick  to  your  principles,  abide  by  them, 
and  you  cannot  sustain  them  in  their  action !  On 
the  other  hand,  Harding,  on  the  principle  of  the 
most  ultra  Eastern  member  here,  pledges  himself 
to  let  them  go  to  Africa  or  any  free  State.  What 
more  could  he  do?  What  more  would  the  laws 
permit  him  to  do  ?  And  what  Eastern  man  will 
fail  to  sustain  him  in  this  ?  He  intended  this,  and 
does  now  intend  it,  so  far  as  he  has  a  right  to  con- 
trol his  movements  on  the  subject. 

My  third  general  ground  is,  that  the  spirit  of 
our  Discipline  does  not,  any  more  than  the  letter 
of  it,  justify  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  their 
suspension  of  this  brother.  The  spirit  of  the 
Discipline  is  a  vague  term,  but  I  may  explain.  I 
mean,  then,  that  the  general  design  and  tendency 
of  the  rules  of  our  Discipline  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  do  not  justify  that  Conference  in  their 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  45 

course.  I  hold  that  the  rules  of  our  Discipline 
on  this  subject  are  exclusively  conservative.  The 
whole  Discipline  is  conservative,  and  I  claim  to 
be  a  conservative  myself.  I  stand  by  Methodist 
Discipline;  and  if  any  man  claims  to  be  conser- 
vative, and  will  not  stand  on  the  same  broad 
platform,  I  deny  that  he  is  one,  and  will  contest  it 
every  inch.  I  repeat,  our  Discipline  is  conserva- 
tive. Hear  it:  ^'What  shall  be  done  for  the  ex- 
tirpation of  the  evil  of  slavery?  Ans.  1.  We 
declare  that  we  are  as  much  as  ever  convinced  of^ 
the  great  evil  of  slavery."  I  believe  it — wdth  all 
my  heart  I  subscribe  to  it.  And  I  can  repeat  that 
language  with  a  feeling  that  none,  except  those 
from  the  South,  like  circumstanced,  can  possibly 
do.  I  say  it  is  an  evil,  because  I  feel  it  to  be  an 
evil.  And  who  cannot  say  the  same  that  has  trod 
the  soil  of  the  South?  It  is  an  evil.  The  Dis- 
cipline declares  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and,  so 
far  as  it  relates  to  the  case,  nothing  but  the  truth ; 
and  a  truth  wdiich,  from  our  connection  with  the 
subject,  we  are  not  ashamed  to  own,  nor  afraid  to 
proclaim  on  the  house-tops,  here  or  elsew^here.  Is 
not  this  enough?  What  more  can  the  brethren 
ask?  What  more  would  they  ask  from  the  South 
as  a  sacrifice  on  the  altar  of  union  than  this  broad, 
unqualified  declaration?  This,  sir,  is  unquestion- 
ably conservatism.  But,  sir,  it  is  not  such  con- 
servatism as  is  represented  by  the  cabs  of  your 


46  Organization  of  the 

city,  always,  when  the  horse  is  taken  out,  letting 
down  on  one  side.  No,  sir,  that  is  not  the  prin- 
ciple of  conservatism,  for  conservatism  always 
involves  principles  appropriate  to  two  sides.  On 
the  other  hand,  I  should  say  that  while  the  Dis- 
cipline deprecates  the  evil  of"  slavery,  it  requires 
the  members  of  the  Church  within  those  States 
to  conform  their  action  to  the  rules  or  laws  of 
those  States  in  which  they  live.  This  is  assuming 
the  doctrine  that  thousrh  slaver v  is  an  evil,  and  a 
great  evil,  it  is  not  necessarily  a  sin.  There's  the 
other  side  of  the  question.  And  is  it  not  clearly 
so?  Now,  we  of  the  South  take  both  sides  of  the 
question — it  is  a  great  evil,  it  is  not  necessarily  a 
sin;  and  we  ask  no  more  of  you.  But  we  main- 
tain that  it  is  not  a  sin,  and  we  demand  this  con- 
cession on  your  part.  They  are  conservatives 
wdio  take  both  sides,  and  not  those  who  are  one- 
sided in  their  doctrine,  practice,  and  votes. 
"  To  recur  to  the  principles  or  position  we  have 
just  laid  down:  we  say  that  slavery  is  an  evil, 
and  that  Southern  people  know  and  feel  it  to  be 
an  evil.  Who  knows  how  much  the  shoe  pinches 
but  he  who  wears  it?  And  who  more  than  we 
who  have  been  compelled  to  submit  to  it,  from 
our  cradle  to  the  present  moment;  and  on  whom 
the  wrong  has  been  inflicted  by  these  very  breth- 
ren of  the  North — the  North,  who  refuse  to  help 
us  in  this  our  calamity?     Who  know  it  so  w^ell  to 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  47 

be  an  evil  as  they  who,  but  a  few  years  ago,  were 
ready  to  take  legislative  action  on  the  subject? 
In  1831,  so  rife  was  the  popular  feeling  and  the 
popular  sentiment  on  this  subject,  that  there  is  not 
a  doubt — so  sorely  did  we  in  Virginia  feel  the 
evil — that  long  before  this  day  some  act  of  gradual 
manumission  would  have  passed  but  for  that  which, 
after  all,  may  prove  to  have  been  the  happt/  inter- 
ference of  Northern  abolitionists.  I  know  this  is 
strange  ground  for  you  to  hear  me  take,  but 
which  I  think  I  shall  make  as  clear  as  the  light 
of  heaven  to  the  mind  of  every  candid  hearer  in 
this  Conference.  We  felt  the  evils  and  groaned 
under  them  so  deeply,  and  so  heartily  did  we  long 
to  get  rid  of  them,  that  from  the  debates  in  1831, 
in  the  Virginia  Legislature,  and  the  popular  senti- 
ment expressed  in  the  pulpit  and  through  the 
press,  no  doubts  were  entertained  that  the  State 
was  abotlt  to  ado]3t  immediate  measures  for  its 
gradual  extirpation.  Eighteen  thousand  dollars 
per  annum  were  appropriated  to  advance  the  colo- 
nization interest  only  as  an  intimation  that  any 
reasonable  claim  for  colonization  upon  the  treas- 
ury of  Virginia  should  be  honored.  Why  was  it 
not  carried  out?  Why,  just  at  this  juncture,  when 
the  bow  of  promise  was  beginning  to  span  the 
heavens,  and  the  long-pray ed-for  hour  was  about 
to  come  upon  us  in  all  its  glory,  behold  this  dark 
cloud  rises  in  the  North  and  East,  and  though  but 


48  Organization  of  the 

the  size  of  a  man's  hand  in  the  beginning,  it  in- 
creased and  passed  over  the  whole  North!  It 
flung  the  dark  shadows  of  its  coming  events  over 
the  moral  hemisphere  of  the  South,  and  mantled 
all  in  sackcloth  and  mourning !  The  tide  of  colo- 
nization was  arrested — it  roiled  back,  and  the 
friends  of  the  cause  were  left  to  mourn  over  their 
disappointments.  And  yet,  in  the  face  of  all  this, 
results  have  shown  that  while  God  never  can  di- 
rect any  thing  that  is  wrong,  yet  his  hand  was  in 
this  matter,  in  permitting  the  error,  or  the  wicked- 
ness— I  will  not  say  which — to  bring  about  a  good 
result.  At  that  very  time  your  agents  in  Liberia, 
resident  colored  men,  wrote  back :  "  Stay  your 
hand.  If  you  are  not  more  select  in  the  choice 
of  those  you  send  here,  we  shall  be  reduced  to  a 
heathen  state.  Send  us  colonists,  but  send  us  se- 
lect men.  Do  n't  send  us  corn-field  hands — they 
are  not  fit  for  freedom." 

This,  sir,  was  a  wise  and  a  sage  remark;  not 
the  result  of  profound  philosophical  investigation, 
it  is  true,  but  the  spontaneous  promptings  of  prac- 
tical observation.  And  what  is  the  principle  on 
which  it  operates  ?  Why,  that  in  forming  a  colony, 
you  can  pour  into  it  a  heterogeneous  mass,  only  so 
far  as  it  can  be  received  into  the  body  politic,  and 
impart  strength  and  vigor  to  the  body.  But  if, 
instead  of  imparting  strength^  they  give  their  own 
character  to  the  body,  the  consequences  will  be 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  49 

certain  ruin  and  destruction.  I  will  give  you  an 
illustration.  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  and  many  will 
sustain  me  in  declaring,  that  if  the  amount  of  vice 
and  ignorance  from  Catholic  Europe,  and  particu- 
larly Ireland,  now  poured  like  a  flood  into  the 
bosom  of  this  vast  republic,  had  swept  into  the 
infant  colonies  of  Jamestown  or  Plymouth  Rock, 
never  would  you  have  seen  this  fair  republic  spring 
up,  striking  its  roots  deep  in  the  soil,  and  spread- 
ing its  branches  from  Maine  to  Mississippi,  and 
from  the  Atlantic  almost  to  the  Pacific  Ocean. 
But  now,  since  this  country  has  grown  up  to  ma- 
turity, and  taken  the  elevation  and  power  of  a 
great  State,  we  can  take  in  these  vast  crowds,  and 
yet  our  political  and  moral  character  remains  un- 
harmed. The  firm  bases  of  our  civil  institutions 
are  unmoved;  the  deep  foundations  of  social  and 
civil  life  have  not  been  reached;  and  we  are  privi- 
leged to  cherish  the  hope  that  time,  in  its  rapid 
roll,  will  but  strengthen  and  perpetuate  our  civil 
and  religious  liberty,  whil(^we  continue  to  be  an 
asylum  for  the  ignorance,  vice,  infidelity,  and  what 
is  worse  than  all  combined,  the  Popery  of  Europe. 
Now,  had  Liberia  been  so  colonized,  it  would  have 
been  ruined.  Such  a  mass  as  Virginia  was  rapidly 
pouring  into  it  would  have  reduced  it  to  its  origi- 
nal heathen  condition.  What  prevented  such  a 
result?  The  abolition  excitement,  and  nothing 
else.    Thanks  to  them,  then,  that  we  have  a  colony 


60  Organkation  of  the 

on  the  coast  of  Africa  to  spread  itself  out,  and 
yet  become  an  asylum  for  every  freed  slave  if  he 
pleases  to  go  there;  and  I  pray  God  that  he  may 
speed  the  happy  day.  I  am  aware  that  our  abo- 
lition brethren  never  intended  this,  and  therefore 
they  may  be  compared  to  an  enemy  who  plunges 
a  dagger  into  your  side,  but  which  only  opens 
some  dangerous  abscess.  And  you  are  mistaken 
if  you  think  I  have  any  animosity  against  aboli- 
tion brethren.  I  believe  God  will  use  them  as 
instruments,  bad  or  good  as  they  may  be. 

Now,  sir,  I  have  enlarged  for  a  purpose  which 
cannot  fail  to  have  been  perceived.  I  ask,  again, 
who  are  the  conservatives?  Those  who  maintain 
one  side  of  the  Discipline,  that  slavery  is  a  great 
evil,  but  will  not  concede  the  principle  that  it  is 
not  necessarily  a  sin?  or,  are  they  the  conserva- 
tives who  take  both  sides  of  the  book?  Such  is 
a  conservative,  and  all  who  symbolize  with  him. 
I  have  heard  a  different  doctrine  from  a  very  un- 
expected quarter.  The  case  has  been  put  with 
the  abolitionists  proper  standing  at  one  extreme, 
the  Southern  portion  of  the  Church  standing  at 
the  other  extreme,  distinguished  by  holding  this 
doctrine,  that  slavery  is  a  great  political  and  social 
blessing.  Sir,  did  you  ever  hear  that  doctrine 
advocated  by  a  Southern  minister  of  the  Method- 
ist Church  in  your  life  ?  I  declare  to  you  I  never 
heard  such  a  doctrine  before.     Forty-one  years 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  51 


have  passed  over  my  head,  tAventy  of  which 
have  been  devoted  to  the  service  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  as  a  Southern  minister,  preach- 
ing to  the  master  and  the  slave;  and  never  in  my 
life  did  I  hear  that  doctrine  until  I  heard  it  im- 
puted to  Southern  brethren  on  the  floor  of  this 
Conference,  from  a  man,  too,  who  claimed  to  be  a 
conservative — a  middle  man,  standing  between  the 
two  extremes,  like  a  mediator,  putting  his  hands 
on  both,  and  bidding  them  be  reconciled.  If  I 
understand  it  rightly,  the  DiscipHne  is  conserva- 
tive, because  it  occupies  the  middle  ground  be- 
tween the  two;  and  so  stand  the  Southern  men. 
The  difference  between  us  and  either  extreme,  is 
just  the  difference  between  plain  right  and  plain 
wrong.  There  is  a  clear,  bold,  vigorous  line  of 
demarkation.  The  partition  wall  betwixt  right 
and  wrong  is  as  high  as  heaven,  and  it  must  be 
scaled  before  an  entrance  can  be  made  from  the 
right  to  the  wrong.  If  you  belong  to  us,  take  the 
ground  of  the  Discipline  and  law.  You  make  an 
imaginary  extremity,  and  then  assume  to  your- 
selves to  be  middle  men.  Now  on  this  broad 
platform  the  Southern  Church  stands :  Slavery  is 
a  great  evil,  but  beyond  our  control;  yet  not  nec- 
essarily a  sin.  We  must  then  quietly  submit  to 
a  necessity  which  we  cannot  control  or  remedy, 
endeavoring  to  carry  the  gospel  of  salvation  to 
both  masters  and  slaves. 


52  Organization  of  the 

Ultra  antislavery  men  deny  the  great  principles  ^ 
assumed,  and  maintain  the  doctrine  that  slavery  is 
necessarily  a  sin  under  all  circumstances.  And 
now  for  the  application  of  the  whole  subject  to 
the  case  in  hand.  I  regret  to  declare  that  it  is 
my  honest  conviction,  that  all  the  action  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference  in  this  case  symbolizes  with 
the  principles  of  ultra  abolitionism.  The  Disci- 
pline of  the  Church,  I  have  shown,  clearly  recog- 
nizes this  brother  in  the  relation  in  which  he  stands 
to  slavery.  The  Laws  of  Maryland  do  not  make 
him  the  possessor  of  slaves.  And  yet  the  action 
of  the  Baltimore  Conference  requires  him  to  man- 
umit them — the  slaves  that  he  never  owned.  A 
legal  opinion  was  given  in  and  confirmed,  and  yet 
they  persisted  in  their  demand !  How  could  they 
do  that  on  the  principle  of  the  conservative  char- 
acter of  our  Discipline?  They  could  not,  yet  they 
did  it,  clearly  on  the  doctrine  that  slavery  is  a  sin 
under  all  circumstances. 

The  first  argument  brought  by  the  advocates 
of  this  position  is,  that  slavery  is  wrong  in  the 
abstract.  What  is  slavery?  Why,  in  its  very 
nature  it  is  a  concrete  act.  What  is  it  when  taken 
abstractly  ?  Why,  it  is  the  act  taken  away  from 
all  its  circumstances.  Take  away  from  slavery  all 
its  circumstances,  and  how  will  any  man  predicate 
right  or  wrong  of  such  a  thing?  It  is  neither 
right  nor  is  it  wrong,  abstracted  from  its  circum- 


3L  E.  Church,  Soiitk  53^ 

stances.  But  perhaps,  in  common  parlance,  slavery 
in  the  abstract  is  the  simple  overt  act  of  slavery, 
which  is  inseparable  from  circumstances.  Yet  we 
will  take  it  so,  though  it  is  a  sort  of  hair-splitting 
business.  It  is  then  the  government  of  man 
by  physical  force.  Is  it  any  thing  more?  Can 
it  possibly  be  any  thing  less?  And  will  you  un- 
dertake to  say  that  the  government  of  man  by 
physical  force  is  wrong  ?  Government  by  physi- 
cal force!  Why,  the  inhabitants  of  Sing  Sing 
Prison  are  detained  there  by  physical  force,  and 
without  their  consent.  And  will  you  undertake 
to  say  that  such  control  of  man  by  physical  force 
is  wrong?  I  imagine,  sir,  that  no  one  will  say 
that.  What  is  true  of  an  abstraction  in  this  sense? 
Why,  that  it  is  right  or  wrong,  according  to  its 
circumstances,  as  with  murder.  Murder  itself  is 
wrong.  Murder  in  the  abstract  is  neither  right 
nor  wrong.  Taking  life  is  right  or  wrong,  accord- 
ing to  its  circumstances.  And  if  the  abstract  or 
overt  act  of  taking  life  be  done  according  to  the 
established  laws  of  the  country,  or  in  self-defense, 
it  is  taking  life  on  a  correct  principle.  If  done 
contrary  to  law  or  with  malice  aforethought,  it  is 
murder,  and  therefore  wrong.  And  so  with  slavery. 
It  is  right  or  wrong,  to  be  justified  or  condemned, 
according  to  its  circumstances. 

A  second  argument  on  the  abstract  question  is, 
that  what  is  wrong  in  the  beginning  can  never  be- 


54  Organization  of  the 

come  right  by  continuance.  Applied  to  slavery,  it 
is  this.  It  was  wrong  to  bring  these  slaves  from. 
Africa,  and  it  can  never  be  right  to  detain  them 
here.  This  is  false  in  principle  and  in  practice; 
for  if  there  be  no  prescription  in  politics  by  which 
things  once  wrong  become  right,  then  all  the 
claims  and  possessions  of  the  present  generation 
are  wrong,  and  to  this  day  founded  in  injustice 
and  oppression.  And  wherefore?  Because  there 
is  scarcely  a  government  now  on  the  earth  that  has 
not  had  its  origin  in  robbery,  oppression,  and 
wrong,  more  or  less;  and  if  these  can  never 
change,  why  the  possessions  of  man  all  over  the 
world  remain  held  in  crime  to  this  day!  Take, 
for  example,  the  Norman  conquest  of  England — 
as  lawless  a  sweep  of  robbery  as  any  that  ever 
darkened  the  pages  of  history — and  if  this  doc- 
trine be  correct,  there  is  not  a  legal  claim  in  exist- 
ence in  England  to  one  foot  of  her  soil.  Take, 
sir,  the  conquest  of  your  own  country — save  my 
own  native  State,  and  I  am  proud  to  make  an  ex- 
ception in  her  favor — the  Indian  is  the  original 
owner  of  the  soil  from  which  he  was  driven;  of 
the  soil  that  gave  him  birth;  and  at  this  very  day, 
the  land  where  sleep  his  fathers,  back  to  unknown 
generations,  this  land  is  his,  not  yours ;  and  if  the 
principle  laid  down  is  just,  give  him  back  the  rights 
he  once  enjoyed,  and  the  land  that  was  his  dear 
and  social  home. 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  55 

But,  we  say,  that  it  is  indispensable  to  the  well- 
being  of  human  society,  that  there  be  principles  of 
prescriptive  right  acknowledged  and  acted  upon, 
and  that  the  original  wrong  should  ultimately  be- 
come right,  when  the  redress  of  that  wrong  would 
inflict  a  greater  evil  than  the  original  wrong.  So 
slavery  may  have  had  its  origin  in  wrong,  cruelty, 
oppression,  and  robbery;  yet  if  the  redress  of  that 
wrong  would  be  a  greater  evil  than  the  wrong  it- 
self, then  it  is  to  be  assumed  as  right.  And  it 
remains  with  the  opposition  to  show  that  the  wrongs 
can  be  redressed  without  interfering  more  prejudi- 
cially with  the  institutions  of  society.  Does  any 
one  doubt  that  the  patriarch  Abraham  was  a  slave- 
holder, or  that  slavery  existed  among  the  Jews, 
and  that,  too,  under  the  Divine  sanction,  and  by 
Divine  appointment?  Of  that  we  are  assured  on 
the  authority  of  God's  word.  But,  then,  we  are 
sure  that  the  Divine  Being  could  neither  appoint 
nor  sanction  any  thing  that  was  in  itself  indepen- 
dently and  absolutely  wrong.  It  must,  therefore, 
have  been  right,  under  the  peculiar  circumstances 
of  Abraham  and  of  the  Jewish  nation.  And  what 
was  right  in  one  instance  may  bo  right  in  another. 
What  were  the  circumstances  under  which  slavery 
was  in  these  cases  we  know  not — no  man  knows 
— but  we  are  bound  to  allow  the  fact. 

What  was  true  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles?     In  Greece,  at  that  time, 


56  Organisation  of  ike 

there  were  about  ninety  slaves  to  every  four  hun- 
dred freemen;  that  is,  about  one-fifth  of  the  whole 
population  were  slaves;  and  Rome  was  at  that 
time  the  greatest  slave-market  in  the  world,  where 
millions  were  bought  and  sold  under  the  reio-n  of 
the  Cesars.  Now  the  system  of  slavery  in  those 
days  was  the  most  unhallowed  that  is  recorded  on 
the  pages  of  history;  and  they  must  know  little 
indeed  of  American  slavery  who  put  it  on  a  foot- 
ing with  that  of  Greece  and  Rome.  Now,  if  in 
the  days  of  Christ  it  passed  unreproved,  though 
existing  in  a  bold  and  palpable  form — if  there 
were  no  warning  epistles  vrritten  to  the  Churches 
on  the  subject  at  the  instance  of  the  apostles, 
surely  it  is  fliir  to  conclude  that  it  is  not  '"neces- 
sarily a  sin."  They  could  not  but  be  cognizant  of 
its  existence,  since  St.  Paul  himself  recognizes  the 
relation  of  master  and  servant,  or  slave,  on  the 
same  principles  that  he  did  the  civil  government. 
This  was  an  absolute  monarchy.  The  lives  of  his 
subjects  were  at  the  disposal  of  the  sovereign;  St. 
Paul  was  in  the  hands  of  the  civil  power,  and 
do  n't  you  suppose  that  he  saw  and  felt  the  evils 
of  so  despotic  a  government?  And  so  with  slavery. 
The  particular  authority  of  the  master  over  the 
slave  was  a  great  evil,  yet  Paul  acknowledged 
both  the  civil  2:overnment  and  the  svstem  of 
slavery.  He  required  all  Christians  to  submit  to 
the  civil  authority,  offensive  as  it  was;   and  he 


M,  E,  Church,  South.  57 

required  all  masters  to  treat  their  slaves  as  became 
masters,  and  slaves  to  be  obedient  to  their  mas- 
ters. What  did  he  intend  by  all  this?  Why, 
that  it  was  his  duty  as  a  minister  to  preach,  and 
watch,  and  labor,  and  thus  bring  about  that  state 
of  things  in  society  that  would  best  indicate  the 
necessity  for  a  different  form  of  government,  and 
a  different  state  of  society.  As  a  private  citizen, 
he  might  have  fallen  out  with  the  government,  as 
a  matter  concerning  his  own  personal  and  private 
feelings;  but  as  a  minister  of  the  Church,  he  felt 
it  his  duty  to  pursue  that  course  which  would 
make  a  different  form  of  government  as  practica- 
ble as  it  is  at  all  times  desirable.  So  we  of  the 
South  see  in  slavery  an  evil;  but  in  the  circum- 
stances we  feel  justified  in  our  course,  and,  indeed, 
cannot  avoid  it.  And  we  feel  that  we  should  be 
doing  an  infinitely  greater  wrong  by  altering  the 
condition  of  the  slaves,  under  present  and  exist- 
ing circumstances.  Our  duty  as  a  Church  and  as 
ministers  is  to  labor  by  preaching  to  bless  both 
master  and  servant — go  preach  among  them — get 
master  and  servant  both  converted — and  thus  bring 
about  a  different  state  of  things,  and  then  a  differ- 
ent state  of  society  will  be  practicable  as  well  as 
desirable;  and  thus,  and  thus  only,  can  we  occupy 
the  broad,  conservative  platform  of  our  Discipline. 
They  affirm  of  slavery  in  the  South,  that  its 
origin  was   wicked — that   the    slaves   were   first 


3 


* 


58  Organization  of  the 

acquired  at  the  expense  of  our  brother's  blood. 
Admit  it  all.  Yet  the  hand  of  God  is  above,  and 
it  is  his  to  overrule  every  thing  for  good.  Go 
with  me  to  the  Southern  plantation,  where  our 
missionaries  have  been  preaching  for  years.  Come 
with  me  through  the  length  and  breadth  of  this 
land!  Converse  with  the  slaves  on  the  subject 
of  religion,  and  you  will  find  thousands  "clothed 
and  in  their  right  minds" — happy  in  the  love  of 
God.  Their  condition  is  better,  a  thousand  times 
better,  than  if  they  had  remained  in  Africa.  They 
would  there  have  sunk  lower  and  lower,  without 
any  knowledge  of  a  Saviour,  for  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  had  not  their  bondage  and  slavery  awak- 
ened the  sympathies  of  mankind  in  their  behalf, 
there  would  not  have  been  such  mighty  efforts  to 
evangelize  Africa  and  other  portions  of  the  world. 
They  were  in  darkness — gross  darkness;  but  who 
will  not  say  that  "the  people  who  sat  in  darkness 
have  seen  a  great  light,"  and  that  the  state  of  the 
slaves  is  notv  better  than  it  was  before  their  bond- 
age? I  feel  a  deep  interest  in  this  matter.  I 
am  emphatically  a  negro  preacher.  I  watch  over 
them,  attend  their  revivals,  lead  their  classes,  and 
labor  among  them  from  year  to  year;  and  have  a 
heart  as  full  of  sympathy  and  love  for  them  as 
any  man's. 

What  is  the  duty  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery?     There  is  dan- 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  59 

ger  of  her  stepping  out  of  the  track  of  duty,  and 
engaging  herself  in  political  relations,  and  thus 
becoming  a  politico-ecclesiastical  establishment. 
The  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal  has  correctly 
told  us  that  we  have  no  right  to  make  laws.  The 
very  day  you  begin  to  make  laws,  you  err,  and 
the  laymen  will  then  have  a  right  to  representa- 
tion; and  have  it  they  must,  and  have  it  they 
shall,  if  it  can  possibly  be  secured  to  them.  Your 
government  can  be  defended  only  on  the  ground 
that  you  make  no  laws.  What,  then,  are  you  to 
do?  Just  tell  the  people  what  are  the  plain  laws 
of  God's  word.  Do  that,  and  the  people  will  not 
find  fault  with  you;  partisans  may,  but  the  intel- 
ligent of  other  denominations,  and  the  whole  body 
of  your  own  Church,  will  not  complain  of  you  for 
that.  The  ministers  are  set  apart  to  explain  re- 
ligion, to  enforce  God's  laws,  and  teach  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Bible,  and  should  let  all  political 
subjects  alone.  I  have  now  had  the  right  to  vote 
for  more  than  twenty  years,  but  I  have  never  yet 
exercised  it.  It  is  no  part  of  my  business  to 
meddle  with  politics.  I  do  not,  however,  consider 
my  omission  to  vote  as  an  example  for  imitation. 
But,  in  regard  to  the  principle  that  governs  me,  I 
shall  never  reconcile  it  to  myself  to  interfere  with 
politics  farther  than  as  a  private  citizen.  I  have 
a  terrible  warfare  against  this  thing.  I  do  n't  be- 
lieve in  this  doctrine  of  Methodist  ministers'  hav- 


60  Organizaiion  of  the 

ing  to  do  with  politics.  The  genius  of  our  gov- 
ernment is  against  it.  I  think  that  we  should 
confine  ourselves  to  our  proper  ministerial  duties. 
I  suppose  we  ministers  can  never  interfere  with 
any  legislation  on  political  matters.  And  our 
laymen  can  come — [Some  remarks  were  here  lost 
by  the  reporter.]  The  genius  of  our  Church  gov- 
ernment requires  that  we  confine  ourselves  exclu- 
sively to  spiritual  matters.  "My  kingdom,"  says 
the  Saviour,  "is  not  of  this  world" — it  is  spirit- 
ual. An}^  interference  by  this  General  Conference, 
directly  or  indirectly,  as  an  ecclesiastical  council, 
with  any  political  questions  or  relations  whatever, 
is  inappropriate  to  our  duties,  and  extremely  dan- 
gerous in  its  results.  We  are  destined  to  become 
a  great  people.  No  human  causes,  that  are  likely 
to  be  brought  to  bear,  can  prevent  our  becoming 
the  most  numerous  and  popular  branch  of  the 
American  Church.  God  grant  that  when  we 
come  to  be  this  great  people,  the  glory  may  not 
have  departed  from  us!  But  when  this  state  of 
things  shall  come,  what  will  be  the  condition  of 
the  country  and  the  Church,  if  our  ministers 
should  not  confine  themselves,  as  ministers,  exclu- 
sively to  their  appropriate  sj)iritual  duties,  and 
leave  the  political  questions  and  relations  of  the 
country  to  be  managed  by  the  laymen  of  the 
Church  and  other  citizens?  Why,  sir,  it  is  per- 
fectly manifest,  that  if  in  that  day  it  shall  be  found 


J/.  E.  Ckurch,  South,  61 

that  the  same  men,  whether  laymen  or  frcachers^ 
who  are  making  rules  for  the  government  of  the 
Church,  are  also  at  the  same  time  members  of  the 
different  State  Legislatures,  or  of  the  General  Gov- 
ernment, they  will  be  making  laws  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  State.  With  the  reins  of  civil  gov- 
ernment in  one  hand,  and  the  reins  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal government  in  the  other,  w^hat  will  be  more 
easy  than  to  unite  both  reins  in  one  hand?  or,  in 
other  words,  unite  Church  and  State?  This,  sir, 
is  the  unhappy  result  to  be  deprecated.  It  is  this 
that  makes  any  action  of  this  body  upon  a  subject 
purely  political  a  just  cause  of  suspicion  by  any 
discriminating  mind.  Do  not,  then,  complain  of 
the  South,  when  she  admonishes  you  to  let  the 
subject  of  slavery  alone,  because  more  appropriate 
to  the  civil  legislature.  The  Scriptures  furnish 
you  with  no  example  of  ecclesiastical  legislation 
on  the  subject  of  slavery,  although  it  existed,  in 
the  days  of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  in  a  far  more 
objectionable  form  than  in  the  present  day.  The 
duty  of  the  Church  is  plain.  If  you  would  bring 
around  that  state  of  thimrs  in  the  South,  in  w^hich 
a  different  social  condition  will  be  as  practicable 
as  it  is  at  all  times  confessedly  desirable,  let  the 
General  Conference,  let  all  the  ministers  in  the 
Church,  confine  themselves  to  their  appropriate 
calling — let  them  preach  the  grace  of  Christ — and 
they  will  accomplish  their  object. 


62  Organization  of  the 

John  A.  Collins,  an  eloquent  and  gifted  mem- 
ber of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  replied  to  Dr. 
Smith.     He  said : 

I  take  the  management  of  this  case  not  without 
diffidence.  To  appear  in  defense  of  one  of  the  old- 
est Annual  Conferences  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church ;  one  that  has  always  stood  by  the  Disci- 
pline of  the  Church,  "in  weal  and  woe;"  that  has 
done  the  utmost  in  her  power  to  maintain  the 
purity  of  our  institutions  entirely  untarnished, 
might  be  considered  a  matter  of  some  surprise  to 
any  man. 

I  am  fortified,  however,  in  the  conviction  that 
the  Baltimore  Conference,  in  this  matter,  as  in  all 
others  of  her  official  action,  is  not  only  pure,  but 
above  suspicion ;  and  she  has  her  best  defense 
when  her  own  acts  speak  in  their  own  proper  lan- 
guage. I  am  aware  that  the  delicacy  of  the  sub- 
ject has  invested  it  with  considerable  interest. 
Slavery  and  abolitionism  have  agitated  the  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  tribunals  of  our  land,  and  for  a 
long  time  convulsed  the  country ;  and,  of  course, 
every  thing  that  has  reference  to  slavery,  or  is 
connected  with  it,  is  a  matter  of  peculiar  interest. 
It  is  supposed,  and  I  believe  it  to  be  the  fact,  that 
this  appeal  will  bring  up  the  connection  of  Meth- 
odism and  Methodist  preachers  with  slavery  more 
distinctly  and  clearly  than  any  other  question  ever 


M,  E.  Church,  South,  63 

brought  before  this  Conference ;  and  I  am  fully 
aware  that  we  shall  need  all  the  prudence,  and 
caution,  and  care,  and  freedom  from  excitement, 
that  we  can  possibly  bring  to  the  management  of 
this  case ;  and  I  pray  God  to  grant  us  wdsdom, 
and  prudence,  and  discretion,  that  we  may  fall 
upon  the  best  means  to  promote  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  welfare  of  his  Church. 

I  certainly  was  delighted  to  hear  many  of  the 
expressions  that  fell  from  my  friend  from  Virginia. 
I  must  congratulate  him  upon  his  conversion,  for 
until  yesterday  morning  I  knew  not  that  he,  or 
those  that  think  with  him,  were  to  be  regarded  as 
conservative — on  this  question.  I  am  delighted 
to  hear  that  they  are  so.  I  listened  with  pleasure 
to  the  warm  and  ardent  manner  in  which  he  ad- 
mitted the  doctrines  of  the  Discipline,  in  regard 
to  the  great  evil  of  slavery.  I  was  particularly 
delighted  at  it,  as  w^ell  as  with  his  declaration,  that 
he  never  had  heard  in  the  South  that  slavery  was 
to  be  regarded  as  a  social  good,  and  the  confirma- 
tory response  of  the  Southern  delegations.  I  was 
gratified  wdth  all  that  was  said,  but  could  not  help 
thinking,  for  the  life  of  me,  of  a  certain  resolution 
passed  at  the  Georgia  Annual  Conference,  that 
''  slavery  is  not  a  moral  evil !"  Not  a  moral  evil ! 
I  should  like  to  know  what  kind  of  an  evil  the 
prosecutor  considers  slavery.  On  the  floor  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1836  and  1840,  slavery  w^as 


•64  Organization  of  the 

defended  by  a  member  of  his  own  delegation,  as 
in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God.  I  was 
pleased  at  the  remarks  of  Brother  Smith  yester- 
day morning.  I  have  seen  a  pamphlet,  written 
by  Mr.  Sims,  a  Methodist  preacher,*  in  which  a 
very  different  view  is  presented  to  that  which  I 
was  glad  to  hear  advanced  by  Dr.  Smith ;  and 
though  he  says  that  every  man  with  sense  enough 
to  go  to  mill,  would  refuse  to  acknowledge  such  a 
sentiment,  yet  I  know  one  of  the  most  eminent  of 
our  clergy  who  has  done  so,  and  who  had  more 
than  sense  enough  '^  to  go  to  mill." 

Still  I  am  gratified  at  the  change  of  sentiment, 
and  at  the  change  of  tone  still  more  so.  There  is, 
nevertheless,  a  drawback  to  all  this ;  for  my  worthy 
friend,  in  carrying  out  some  of  his  abstractions, 
which  are  always  doubtful  in  character  and  dan- 
gerous in  issue,  has  involved  himself  in  an  appa- 
rent contradiction.  He  believes  slavery  to  be  an 
evil  in  fact,  and  a  great  evil;  he  says  that  the 
Southerners  are  groaning  under  it,  and  that  it  is 
their  affliction  and  sorrow ;  and  yet  contends  that 
circumstances  can  make  that  thing  good  which  in 
its  commencement  was  evil.  He  deprecates  the 
African  slave-trade  as  abominable,  and  the  means 


*  This  is  an  error :  the  pamphlet  referred  to,  though  often  at- 
tributed to  Prof.  E.  D.  Sims,  who  is  a  Methodist  preacher,  was 
written  by  A.  D.  Sims,  Esq.,  a  lawyer  in  Darlington,  S.  C. 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  65 

employed  to  secure  slaves  as  vile  and  treacherous  ; 
but  that  circumstances  have  taken  away  all  that 
was  offensive  in  its  character,  until  slavery,  as  ex- 
isting now,  is  RIGHT.  If  so,  I  contend,  upon  his 
own  show^ing,  it  cannot  be  a  great  evil. 

There  is  also  another  drawback.  "With  all  his 
strong  expressions  with  respect  to  the  great  evil 
of  slavery,  before  he  got  through  Avith  the  "  ab- 
straction," he  placed  human  beings  on  the  same 
ground  as  the  lands  of  New  England  and  Pennsyl- 
vania, as  goods  and  chattels.  These  things  detract 
from  the  warm  and  strong  declarations  of  my  friend 
on  this  subject.  Still  I  will  give  him  credit  for 
being  a  conservative  as  far  as  he  goes. 

I  shall  not  follow  the  prosecutor  in  all  his  re- 
marks, for  though  I  listened  with  much  interest  to 
his  able  and  powerful  speech — a  speech  that  did 
credit  to  his  head  and  heart — there  was  a  great 
deal  that  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the 
question ;  and  if  our  case  had  had  the  small-pox, 
two-thirds  of  his  remarks  would  never  have  caught 
it.  They  had  no  relation  to  the  case  at  all,  and 
do  not  operate  except  to  break  down  the  fair  issue 
which  we  wish  to  make  before  this  Conference.  I 
shall  try  to  meet  the  case  on  its  merits,  and  place 
the  question  on  its  true  basis. 

The  prosecutor  first  complained  of  our  journal, 
and  strove  hard  to  make  the  impression — and  may 
have  succeeded,  to  some  extent — that  there  was 


66  Organization  of  the 

informality  in  that  journal.  There  is  none  what- 
ever, not  a  particle  of  it,  and  he  failed  so  clearly 
to  make  it  out,  that  he  dropped  it  suddenly. 
There  was  no  real  trial  here,  and  there  is  every 
thing  in  the  journal  that  ought  to  be  recorded  in 
its  pages.  Let  us  look  at  it  fairly.  On  the  call- 
ing of  the  name  of  Mr.  Harding  at  the  Conference 
in  1844,  his  Presiding  Elder  stated  that  by  mar- 
riage he  had  become  connected  with  slavery.  Mr. 
Harding  assented  to  the  statement  made  by  the 
Presiding  Elder;  whereupon  the  case  was  referred 
to  a  committee.  They  reported  that  the  appellant 
be  required  to  manumit  his  slaves  at  specified  ages, 
and  give  a  pledge  to  the  Conference  to  that  effect. 
He  refused  to  abide  by  their  decision,  or  to  give 
the  pledge  required.  He  was  "labored"  with, 
(as  our  friends,  the  Quakers,  say,)  during  the 
whole  Conference.  Finally,  a  committee  w^as  ap- 
pointed to  induce  him  to  accede  to  the  requisition 
of  his  brethren,  and  they  reported  that  after  all 
he  had  refused  to  comply. 

Mr.  Harding.  Was  that  committee  a  commit- 
tee to  labor?  They  were  appointed  to  inquire 
whether  there  was  any  legal  difficulty  in  the  case. 

Mr.  Slicer.  The  case  is  as  the  representative 
states  it. 

Mr.  Collins.  The  great  matter  is  this — Mr. 
Harding  refused  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the 
Conference.     He  would  not  move  a  step  on  the 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  6T 

issue.  The  question  then  became,  whether  the 
Baltimore  Conference  was  to  bow  to  Harding,  or 
he  to  the  Conference — w^hether  we  were  to  give 
up  the  ground  always  occupied  by  us  on  this  deli- 
cate subject,  OX'  w^hether  he  should  yield  to  us — 
whether  he  should  be  permitted  to  beard  the  Con- 
ference, or  we  should  bring  him  up  to  the  mark, 
and  make  the  rule  bear  upon  him.  When  we 
found  that  all  attempts  at  reasoning  with  him  were 
disregarded,  and  that  all  the  means  that  brotherly 
affection  could  suggest  and  employ  were  ineffect- 
ual, w^e  suspended  him,  as  the  only  resource  we 
had  in  the  premises.  All  this  is  stated  in  the 
journal;  clearly,  fully,  fairly,  distinctly  stated. 
What  else  do  you  want  ?  What  more  was  neces- 
sary? There  were  no  witnesses  examined  on  the 
occasion,  for  we  wanted  none.  Brother  Harding 
admitted  the  fact,  which  indeed  was  notorious. 
He  admitted  it  by  his  non-denial  of  it  before  the 
committee,  and  by  his  response  and  pleadings  in 
the  premises ;  and  all  that  we  had  to  do  was,  to 
bring  him  to  the  bar  of  the  Conference  to  answer 
for  that  which  he  acknowdedged  when  the  Presid- 
ing Elder  made  the  statement  of  the  fact.  There 
was  not  a  question  raised  for  a  moment  as  to 
whether  he  was  innocent  or  guilty  of  what  the 
Presiding  Elder  had  charged  him  with.  H.^  pleaded 
guilty  to  it.  There  were  no  witnesses,  and  there- 
fore the  journal  states  all  that  it  could  state :  the 


68  Organization  of  the 

"questions"  were  never  asked,  the  "answers  to 
them"  never  received,  and  therefore  no  "entry" 
or  record  made  of  them  on  the  journal. 

The  prosecution  next  relied  ujDon  the  testimony 
of  Brother  Gere,  whose  recollections  of  the  case 
were  different  from  those  of  any  other  member  of 
his  delegation.  If  that  brother  were  to  state  un- 
deniably, positively,  and  distinctly,  that  he  re- 
membered the  pledge  in  the  words  he  states,  then 
of  course  the  neo:ative  testimony  could  not  be  sus- 
tained ;  for  I  am  not  of  the  opinion  of  the  Irish- 
man, who  complained  of  being  found  guilty  of  the 
charge  of  theft,  on  the  testimony  of  one  witness, 
on  the  ground  that  he  could  bring  a  hundred  per- 
sons who  could  testify  that  they  never  had  seen 
him  steal.  If,  therefore,  Brother  Gere  does  give 
positive  and  distinct  testimony  to  the  fact  he 
states,  I  admit  at  once  its  weight  and  authority, 
and  I  now  caU  upon  him  to  answer  me  a  question : 

"Are  your  impressions  distinct  and  positive  that 
Harding  said  that  he  and  his  wife  would  consent 
that  these  persons  should  go  to  a  free  State  ?" 

Dr.  Smith.     That  is  not  the  subject;  but  that 

Brother  Harding  pledged  himself,  for  his  wife  and 

for  himself,  that  he  would  send  them  to  Africa  if 

they  wished,  or  that  they  might  go  to  a  free  State. 

-  Mr.  Collins.     Very  well,  I  put  it  in  that  form. 

Mr.  Gere.  I  will  state,  as  nearly  as  I  can,  what 
I  said  yesterday  morning.     I  did  not  say  that  my 


i¥.  E.  Church,  South,  69 

recollection  was  distinct,  but  that  the  impression  on 
my  mind  was  as.  distinct  and  clear  as  if  it  had 
been  told  me  yesterday  morning.  But  I  said  that 
I  might  be  mistaken,  and  I  was  aroused  to  this 
from  what  Brother  Griffith  said,  otherwise  I  had 
no  idea  that  any  one  would  haA^e  doubted  it. 
Brother  Morgan  referred  to  the  case  of  Brother 
Hansberger,  and  said  that  he  had  pledged  himself 
as  I  had  said  Brother  Harding  had  done.  I  think 
that  I  may  have  identified  them.  I  have  been 
trying  to  conform  to  my  brethren,  but  I  still  say 
that  the  impression  remains,  though  I  may  have 
confounded  the  two  cases. 

Mr.  Collins.  I  will  show  you  now,  in  confirma- 
tion of  Brother  Morgan's  account,  that  Brother 
Gere  must  be  mistaken.  If  Brother  Harding  had 
ever  given  the  pledge  which  he  says  he  did — 
pledging  himself  and  his  wife — such  was  the  dis- 
position of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  that  there 
would  have  been  no  such  action  as  that  which 
brings  this  business  here.  I  know  that  he  never 
did.     But  let  that  pass. 

Mr.  Harding.  I  did  pledge  myself  as  Brother 
Gere  says. 

Mr.  Collins.  Why,  Mr.  President,  it  is  all  we 
asked  for.  How  could  the  case  have  got  here 
if  he  had  pledged  himself  to  do  the  very  thing  we 
asked  him  to  do  ?  We  would  have  given  him  the 
whole  year.     It  is  all  /asked. 


70  Organization  of  the 

Mr.  Harding.  You  never  did  ask  it,  sir.  It 
never  was  asked. 

Mr.  Collins.  Why,  sir,  we  should  then  have 
acted  very  strangely,  for  that  is  all  w^e  asked  in 
the  resolution.     Hear  it : 

'^ Resolved^  That  Brother  Harding  be  required  to 
execute,  and  cause  to  be  recorded,  a  deed  securing 
the  manumission  of  the  slaves  hereinafter  men- 
tioned, etc.,  etc.,  and  that  Brother  Harding  be  re- 
quired to  give  to  this  Conference  a  pledge  that  the 
said  manumission  shall  be  effected  during  the  en- 
suing Conference-year." 

I  shall  proceed  now  to  reply  to  the  material  parts 
of  the  argument  for  the  prosecution  in  this  matter. 

First.  That  the  laws  of  Maryland  do  not  admit 
of  manumission.  Now,  sir,  this  is  not  according 
to  the  fact  in  the  case.  The  opinion  of  Judge 
Key  has  been  read  to  the  effect  that  slaves  cannot 
be  manumitted  in  Maryland  ;  but  the  first  law  they 
read  directly  contradicts  the  opinion.  The  law  of 
1831  specifies  the  course  that  shall  be  taken  with 
regard  to  manumitted  slaves.  It  provides  three 
modes  of  disposing  of  them.  First,  they  may  go 
to  Africa;  or  second,  to  the  non-slaveholding 
States;  and  thirdly,  if  they  fail  to  do  so,  the 
sheriff  is  required,  not  to  take  them  up  and  sell 
them  again  into  slavery,  but  to  convey  them, 
against  their  will  if  need  be,  beyond  the  bounds 
of  the  State.     The  slave  once  free  in  Maryland  is 


M,  E.  Church  South.  71 


forever  free.  The  question  does  not  lie  on  that 
ground.  By  the  Laws  of  Virginia,  if  a  manumitted 
slave  remains  one  year  in  the  State  after  his  manu- 
mission, he  can  be  reen slaved ;  but  in  Maryland, 
Tvhen  once  free,  he  can  never  be  reenslaved.  That 
is  the  law  referred  to  by  the  prosecution,  and  it 
contradicts  Judge  Key,  and  is  directly  against  the 
ground  taken.  The  law  of  1832  simply  concurs 
in  this  provision  of  the  former  law,  and  increases 
the  fine  upon  the  sheriff,  if  he  refuses  or  fails  to 
comply  with  the  requisitions  of  the  statute.  But 
all  its  enactments  clearly  and  distinctly  recognize 
manumission.  The  law  of  1843  is  a  strange  and 
singular  law.  Its  fundamental  feature  is  against 
the  law  of  God,  for  that  makes  man  the  head  of 
his  w^ife,  and  this  law  takes  man  from  the  position 
assigned  to  him  by  the  Supreme  Being.  And  I 
am  satisfied  that  this  law  will  w^ork  such  evil  that, 
as  a  matter  of  necessity,  it  will  have  to  be  re- 
pealed. I  hope,  therefore,  that  you  will  not  judge 
us  by  this  law.  We  cannot  answer  for  the  ter- 
giversation of  the  Laws  of  Maryland,  and  cannot 
conform  to  all  their  changes.  As  they  have  gone 
so  far  as  to  pass  a  law  deposing  man  from  his 
rightful  place  in  the  domestic  economy — a  place 
assigned  to  him  from  the  beginning  of  time  by 
positive  Divine  injunction — they  may  pass  a  law 
requiring  him  to  obey  his  wife.  What  may  have 
been  the  intention  of  the  Legislature  in  passing 


72  Organization  of  the 

this  law,  I  know  not.  They  may  have  intended, 
in  a  sinister  way,  to  nail  slavery  faster  than  ever, 
and  to  rivet  its  chains  more  firmly.  They  had 
attempted  to  pass  a  law  which  outraged  public 
sentiment  on  this  subject.  It  raised  the  indigna- 
tion of  the  people  to  such  a  pitch,  that  they  were 
compelled  to  retract  it,  after  getting  it  into  the 
Senate.  Foiled  in  that,  they  may  have  intended 
to  do  that  by  stealth  which  they  could  not  accom- 
plish openly,  and,  binding  the  fetters  still  more 
strongly,  render  slavery  more  permanent,  and  man- 
umission more  difficult.  But  the  eyes  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Maryland  will  be  opened  to  the  iniquity 
and  oppression  of  this  law  also,  and  the  Legisla- 
ture will  be  driven  to  repeal  it.  Or  the  intention 
may  have  been  benevolent,  as  the  law  heretofore 
provided  that  if  a  man  married  a  wife  with  slaves, 
they  became  his  property  by  such  marriage,  and 
could  be  seized  by  his  creditors ;  hence  this  is  en- 
titled a  law  to  regulate  conjugal  rights  as  they  re- 
gard property.  I  say  it  may  be  benevolent  in  its 
design,  and  be  intended  to  secure  to  the  female 
protection,  if  so  unfortunate  as  to  be  married  to 
one  whose  extravagance  or  crime  may  reduce  him 
to  insolvency,  and  she  be  turned  out  to  penury 
and  want. 

Nothing  at  all  is  said  in  this  law  about  manu- 
mission. It  repeals  no  la.w.  There  is  no  repeal- 
ing clause  in  it ;  and  it  might  be  safely  and  well 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  73 

argued  whether  such  a  law  were  worth  one  cent. 
It  does  not  destroy  the  power  to  manumit.  In 
one  of  its  sections  it  provides,  that  if  the  husband 
and  wife  unite,  the  slaves  can  be  disposed  of.  Its 
only  operation  in  this  particular  is  to  render  manu- 
mission more  difficult,  by  requiring  the  coopera- 
tion of  the  wife.  Nor  does  it  increase  the  diffi- 
culty much,  if  any.  No  pious  and  intelligent 
woman,  (such  as  Mrs.  Harding  doubtless  is,)  who 
has  a  husband  in  whose  judgment  and  discretion 
she  confides,  will  jeopard  his  standing — especially 
if  he  be  a  Christian  minister — for  the  considera- 
tion of  a  few  slaves. 

A  member  called  Mr.  C.  to  order,  on  the  ground 
of  making  remarks  prejudicial  to  the  character  of 
the  ladies. 

Dr.  Smith  hoped  the  speaker  would  not  be  in- 
terrupted, but  allowed  to  go  on  without  restraint, 
and  say  whatever  he  thought  important  to  his 
case.     Besides,  he  (Dr.  S.)  had  the  right  of  reply. 

Mr.  Collins.  It  is  a  fair  argument.  I  do  not 
impeach  the  ladies  at  all.  I  deny  the  allegation 
that  I  made  any  remark  that  could  be  construed 
into  any  such  meaning.  I  say  that  the  ladies  love 
their  husbands  so  tenderly,  and  with  such  affec- 
tionate devotion  to  their  interests  and  happiness, 
that  if  the  husband  wished  it,  they  would  yield 
such  a  point  at  once,  and  not  jeopardize  his  stand- 
ing for  the  sake  of  a  few  negroes.     What  I  meant 


74  Organization  of  the 

was,  that  the  effort  had  not  been  made;  that  if 
half  the  pains  were  taken  in  order  to  obtain  her 
consent,  if  such  were  necessary,  to  the  manumis- 
sion of  these  negroes,  that  were  used  in  wooing 
the  lady,  the  application  would  have  been  success- 
ful. I,  therefore,  always  suspect  the  man  to  be 
a  slaveholder  at  heart  who  rests  his  .defense  on 
such  a  plea.  When  God  arrested  man  in  Para- 
dise, and  questioned  him  concerning  his  transgres- 
sion, he  said.  The  woman  had  deceived  him.  I 
always  thought  that  a  dastardly  act  on  the  part  of 
Adam.  We  are  very  easily  tempted  to  do  what 
we  want  to  do,  and  then  rest  the  blame  on  others ; 
and  my  sex  has  kept  up  the  dastardly  conduct  to 
the  present  time.  We  lay  our  wrongs  and  evils 
upon  our  wives,  when  they  cannot  be  heard  in 
self-vindication. 

Sir,  I  would  not  set  up  such  a  defense  as  this. 
I  would  scorn  to  do  it ;  and  I  know  full  well,  I  am 
perfectly  convinced  in  my  judgment,  that  if  the 
appellant  wanted  to  manumit  these  slaves,  his  wife 
would  not  stand  in  the  way  one  moment.  He 
need  not  to  have  brought  that  plea  here.  The 
difficulty  is  with  Mr.  Harding  himself,  who  is  at 
heart  a  slaveholder,  and  this  plea  is  only  put  in 
for  effect.  In  my  judgment,  if  he  had  desired  it, 
his  wife  would  have  consented  to  their  manumis- 
sion. After  all  that  has  been  said  about  the  Laws 
of  the  State  of  Maryland  making  it  difficult  to 


M,  E.   Churchy  South,  75 

manumit  slaves,  it  has  been  repeatedly  done.  Mr. 
Cornelius  Howard,  one  of  the  most  respectable 
citizens  of  that  State,  and  brother  of  Colonel 
Howard,  who  led  so  gallantly  the  Maryland  line 
at  the  battle  of  the  Cowpens,  and  whose  name 
stands  out  in  proud  distinction  before  his  country, 
a  citizen  who  understood  law  as  well  as  any  man, 
left  his  slaves  free  bv  will,  and  that  deed  is  on 
record  in  the  proper  county  court  of  Maryland. 
And  how  did  he  do  it  ?  Why,  because  he  Avanted 
to  do  it,  and  had,  therefore,  the  power.  The  will 
is  the  great  matter.  The  wish  is  '^  father  to  the 
thought."  This  man  had  slaves ;  he  liberated 
every  one  of  them,  and  had  the  deed  of  manumis- 
sion recorded.  And  this  during  the  last  year,  at 
the  close  of  1843;  and  this  law,  on  which  the 
prosecution  lays  so  much  stress  as  prohibiting 
such  manumission,  was  passed  in  February,  1843. 
Brother  Blake,  one  of  the  cases  before  the  Annual 
Conference,  against  whom  action  was  taken  on  pre- 
cisely similar  grounds  as  in  this  case,  came  up  last 
Conference  and  told  us  he  had  manumitted  his 
boy,  and  had  the  deed  recorded  in  Baltimore 
County  Court;  and  he  did  it  last  year.  Now, 
with  these  facts  on  record,  how  shall  it  be  plead 
here — how  can  it — that  there  is  no  power  to  man- 
umit ?  There  is  such  power.  The  facts  that  have 
transpired  are  an  incontestable  proof  that  the  thing 
can  be  done ;  so  that,  as  far  as  the  law  of  Mary- 


76  Organization  of  ihe 

land  is  concerned,  there  is  nothing  that  renders  it 
impossible.  The  Baltimore  Conference,  then,  in 
view  of  the  law,  acted  rightly  toward  Mr.  Hard- 
ing. They  did  right ;  he  could  hare  manumitted 
these  slaves,  and  they  suspended  him  because  he 
would  not. 

The  second  point  urged  by  the  prosecution  is, 
that  if  the  doctrine  respecting  the  Laws  of  Mary- 
land be  doubtful,  and  if  it  be  plead  that  Harding 
has  the  right  of  property  in  the  slaves,  yet  the 
rule  of  Discipline  is  in  his  favor.  He  could  not 
do  it  legally.  Why  not  ?  The  prosecution  give 
me  no  answer  to  that  question.  So  far  as  the  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Church  is  concerned,  on  this  point 
we  will  take  our  stand.  I  say  Mr.  Harding  did 
violate  the  Discipline.  The  rule  does  positively 
bear  upon  him,  and  the  Baltimore  Conference  de- 
serve thanks  instead  of  the  sneers  that  have  been 
directed  against  them,  that  they  have  had  the 
firmness,  in  the  face  of  a  slaveholding  community, 
to  enforce  the  Discipline.  If  we  have  not  got  the 
rule  of  Discipline  on  our  side,  we  have  a  hard  case 
to  make  out.  But  that  we  have  it  I  will  satisfy 
you.  I  wish  the  mind  and  the  intelligence  of  the 
Conference  to  be  directed  to  this  point,  that  the 
Discipline  of  the  M.  E.  Church  contemplates  the 
relation  of  its  members  with  slavery  in  a  three- 
fold  point  of  view.  First,  as  it  regards  private 
members  ;  secondly,  as  it  respects  local  preachers ; 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  11 

and  thirdly,  as  it  concerns  traveling  preachers.  It 
is  essential  to  maintain  this  distinction  in  coming 
to  an  opinion  on  this  case. 

First.  As  to  private  members.  The  only  rule 
for  this  class  is  found  in  the  General  Rules,  and 
only  prohibits  the  buying  and  selling  of  men, 
women,  and  children,  with  an  intention  to  enslave 
them.  A  man,  by  this  rule,  may  inherit  slaves, 
or  they  may  come  to  him  by  natural  increase,  and 
he  may  will  them  to  his  posterity,  and  there  is 
nothing  in  this  Discipline  that  can  take  hold  of 
him,  this  being  the  only  law  that  reaches  private 
members.     It  is  sufficiently  latitudinarian. 

Second.  Official  members.  The  rule  on  this 
point  takes  a  stronger  tie,  and  is  different  in  that 
respect  to  the  rule  affecting  private  members : 

"  We  declare  that  we  are  as  much  as  ever  con- 
vinced of  the  great  evil  of  slavery;  therefore  no 
slaveholder  shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  station 
in  our  Church  hereafter,  where  the  laws  of  the 
State  in  which  he  lives  will  admit  of  emancipa- 
tion, and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  free- 
domr 

Official  members  are  required  to  emancipate. 
The  private  member  is  not.  The  official  member 
must  manumit,  but  still  the  rule  comes  down  with 
comparatively  less  strictness,  applying  only  in  such 
States  as  will  permit  the  slave  to  "  enjoy  his  free- 
dom." 


78  Organization  of  the 

Third.  Traveling  preachers.  Here  the  Disci- 
pline is  still  more  stringent : 

•'  When  any  traveling  preacher  becomes  an 
owner  of  a  slave,  or  slaves,  by  any  means,  he 
shall  forfeit  his  ministerial  character  in  our  Church, 
unless  he  execute,  if  it  be  practicable,  a  legal  eman- 
cipation of  such  slaves,  conformably  to  the  laws 
of  the  State  in  which  he  lives." 

Here  nothing  is  said  about  the  liberated  slave 
being  permitted  to  enjoy  freedom.  The  simple 
act  of  manumission  is  treated  of,  and  made  com- 
pulsory on  the  traveling  preacher.  "  If  practica- 
ble," he  is  to  manumit.  There  is  no  other  con- 
dition ;  the  exception  is  narrowed  down,  and  then 
the  law  is  binding,  and  compels  him  to  manumit. 
And  it  is  very  right  and  proper,  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  that  the  Discipline  on  this  subject  should 
be  more  strict  upon  the  traveling  preacher  than 
upon  the  local  preacher,  for  the  same  reason  that 
it  is  drawn  more  tightly  in  the  case  of  the  local 
preacher  than  -the  private  member.  There  is  wis- 
dom, great  wisdom,  in  this  regulation.  Our  private 
members  are  actual  residents  and  citizens  of  given 
States.  Necessity  rules  them,  and  therefore  it 
might  not  do  to  make  the  law  so  tight  in  their 
case  as  in  others.  Our  local  ministers  are  resi- 
dents of  States ;  but,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
term,  our  traveling  preachers  are  citizens  of  the 
world;  not  of  Virginia,  or  Maryland,  or  South 


3L  E,   Church,  South.  7ft 

Carolina;  for  the  Bishop  has  power  to  take  up  a 
brother  from  South  Carolina,  and  send  him  into 
Massachusetts.  And  this  is  especially  the  case 
in  the  territory  embraced  by  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference, which  includes  part  of  Pennsylvania. 
And  because  we  are  birds  of  passage,  and  can  be 
removed  at  pleasure,  by  the  authorities  of  the 
Church,  out  of  the  way  of  the  local  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  manumission,  the  law  is,  very  properly, 
made  more  binding  upon  us.  And  remember,  we 
have  not  brought  a  local  preacher  here,  but  a  trav- 
eling preacher,  and  we  try  him  under  the  rule  that 
applies  to  traveling  preachers. 

The  next  point  that  the  prosecution  urges  is, 
that  their  construction  of  the  Discipline  was  con- 
firmed by  a  resolution  of  the  General  Conference, 
in  1840.  I  deny  it  altogether  in  its  application 
to  a  traveling  preacher;  and  I  could  not  help  re- 
marking, that  though  my  friend  brought  forward 
the  rule  applying  to  traveling  preachers,  yet,  after 
reading,  he  very  quietly  dismissed  it,  and  kept  the 
rule  applying  to  a  local  preacher  constantly  before 
our  eyes.  I  am  not  sure,  sir,  that  he  did  not 
thereby  mislead  us  a  little.  That  I  do  not  mis- 
state him  at  all  is  plain,  for  he  made  a  reference 
to  the  action  of  the  last  General  Conference  on  a 
memorial  from  Westmoreland,  respecting  the  ordi- 
nation of  some  local  preachers.  What  have  we 
to  do  with  that?     Has  it  any  thing  to  do  in  the 


80  Organization  of  the 

premises?  We  have  now  to  do  with  the  Disci- 
pline that  operates  upon  traveling  preachers,  and 
with  that  alone.  The  Baltimore  Conference  could 
not  ordain  those  brethren,  and  they  came  up  here 
to  induce  the  General  Conference  to  compel  us  to 
do  it.  There  the  action  was  upon  the  case  of 
local  preachers,  and  my  friend  brings  up  a  stray 
resolution  on  their  case!  But  let  him  show  me 
where  it  says  a  word  about  traveling  preachers. 
Their  memorial  was  on  their  ow^n  behalf,  as  local 
preachers;  and  if  they  said  one  Avord  about  trav- 
eling preachers,  they  exceeded  their  power  alto- 
gether. 

The  action  of  the  General  Conference  on  that 
application  has  no  bearing  w^hatever  on  the  present 
case,  unless  they  had  said  that  the  same  rule  was 
binding  upon  traveling  preachers  also,  which  they 
were  careful  not  to  do,  so  that  the  prosecution  has 
altogether  failed  in  making  out  their  construction 
of  the  Discipline.  He  gave  us,  to  be  sure,  a  very 
strange  definition  of  w^hat  was  meant  by  legal 
emancipation;  it  deserved  the  credit  of  original- 
ity; it  was  this,  that  a  slave  must  be  permitted 
to  enjoy  his  freedom.  Now,  legal  emancipation 
simply  means,  emancipation  according  to  law — 
the  law  of  the  State — whether  the  man  shall  be 
allowed  to  remain  in  the  State  or  not.  And  you 
cannot  show  me  any  action  of  the  General  Con- 
ference by  which  a  traveling  preacher  cannot  ef- 


31.  E.   Church,  SoiUL  81 

feet  a  legal  emancipation.  How  would  this  apply 
in  Mr.  Harding's  case?  Why,  according  to  the 
law  of  Maryland,  he  must  emancipate  with  the 
consent  of  his  wife.  Then  he  does  it  legally. 
The  Discipline,  sir,  is  against  Mr.  Harding,  or  it 
never  was  against  any  man  in  the  world.  It 
meets  him  right  in  the  face,  and  he  cannot  get 
round  it.  The  Baltimore  Conference  did  right  in 
suspending  him;  and  though  that  Conference  has 
been  held  up  here  to  contempt  and  scorn,  we  are 
not  ashamed  of  ourselves ;  for  we  have  shown, 
with  regard  to  the  whole  matter,  that  we  have  lain 
our  interests  upon  the  altar  of  principle  and  old 
Methodism,  and  from  our  present  position  we  do 
not  mean  to  be  driven  by  Mr.  Harding,  or  any 
other  man. 

The  prosecutor  has  been  pleased  to  refer  to  the 
conscience  of  the  appellant  in  this  matter.  He 
had  better  let  that  alone  for  the  present.  This 
conscience  is  a  stran2:e  affair.  Where  was  his 
client's  conscience  when  he  entered  into  this  busi- 
ness? Where  his  respect  for  the  Discipline,  to 
which  he  had  solemnly  vowed  to  submit  himself? 
or  for  the  oft-repeated  wishes  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference?  He  knew  well  that  the  step  he  was 
taking  would  meet  with  the  disapprobation  of  al- 
most every  member  on  the  floor  of  that  Confer- 
ence; and  yet  he  had  no  smitings  of  conscience 
then!     I  have  heard  of  a  highwayman  in  Italy, 


82  Organizaiion  of  the 

who  could  rob  a  man  and  cut  his  throat  without 
any  compunction;  but  he  happened  to  eat  meat 
one  day  in  Lent,  and  his  conscience  smote  him 
tremendously.  0  yes;  this  conscience  is  at  times 
a  very  facile  thing !  A  man's  interest  will  stretch 
his  conscience  tremendously.  I  won't  press  this 
point  any  farther. 

The  prosecutor  rejoiced  as  one  who  had  found 
great  spoil;  but  really,  I  must  dash  his  joy.  I 
am  for  the  Baltimore  Conference  against  the  whole 
world;  and  therefore,  though  my  friend  was  very 
much  pleased  with  what  he  supposed  he  had  found, 
I  must  take  some  of  his  pleasure  from  him.  He 
referred  with  an  air  of  great  triumph,  and  called 
the  attention  of  Eastern  and  Northern  men  to 
some  few  words  found  in  the  report  of  this  case. 
^'The  old  ones  having  passed  the  age,"  etc.,  were 
to  be  retained.  This  is  the  clause  my  friend 
chuckled  over  so.  He  thought  he  had  caught  us 
tripping,  and  appealed  to  his  Eastern  brethren  to 
see  if  we  carried  water  on  both  shoulders.  But, 
sir,  we  are  straight;  we  stand  erect  and  upright, 
unhurt  and  unharmed;  and  here  let  me  say,  that 
we  are  one  kind  of  men — North,  South,  East  and 
West,  and  Middle  States — all  stand  on  the  same 
broad  basis.  He  forgot  to  tell  this  General  Con- 
ference that  those  very  words  were  afterward 
stricken  out.  They  never  passed  the  Baltimore 
Conference.    But  suppose  they  had  not  been  taken 


^ 


M,  E.   Church,  South.  83 

out  of  the  report.  My  friend  knows  very  well 
that  it  is  the  case  almost  everywhere,  that  when 
a  slave  arrives  at  a  certain  age,  he  cannot  be  man- 
umitted without  security  be  given  by  his  owner 
that  he  shall  not  come  upon  the  parish.  This  is 
the  case  in  Maryland.  In  Virginia  the  law  is  still 
stronger.  They  cannot  be  got  rid  of,  because  they 
cannot  take  care  of  themselves.  The  prosecutor 
did  not  state  this.  If  our  journal  had  stated  the 
case  as  he  represented  it,  we  would  have  been  per- 
fectly justified  in  the  eye  of  the  law.  But  we 
struck  it  out  because  we  would  not  commit  our- 
selves at  all  on  the  subject. 

The  fourth  argument  employed  by  the  prosecu- 
tor was,  that  the  spirit  of  the  Discipline,  as  well 
as  the  letter,  was  in  favor  of  Mr.  Harding,  and 
against  the  Baltimore  Conference.  It  is  a  very 
hard  matter  to  define  what  spirit  is,  and  he  did 
not  favor  us  with  any  definition  on  the  subject. 
He  simply  took  it  for  granted  that  the  Methodist 
Discipline  was  conservative.  I  hold  that  it  is  op- 
posed to  slavery,  and  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  that 
sanctions  slavery.  What  we  mean  by  conserva- 
tism is  this :  A  party  in  the  South  contend  for 
slavery  as  proper  and  right,  and  essential  even  to 
the  existence  of  the  republic  and  social  institutions, 
and  that  it  ought  never  to  be  abolished.  A  party 
in  the  North  say  it  is  an  evil  and  a  sin,  and  ought 


84  Organisation  of  the 

to  be  abolished  at  once  without  regard  to  circum- 
stances. Now  between  these  two  is  conservatism. 
The  views  of  the  Discipline  on  the  evil  of  slavery 
are  absolute  and  positive.  It  pronounces  it  an 
evil,  and  a  great  evil.  And  in  fact  it  asks  the 
question,  "What  shall  be  done  for  the  extirpation 
of  the  great  evil  of  slavery?"  and  then  specifies 
measures  by  which  its  purpose  shall  be  effected. 
But  it  does  not  regard  it  as  sin  under  all  circum- 
stances. 

My  friend  referred  very  strangely  and  singu- 
larly to  the  happy  interference  of  Northern  aboli- 
tionism as  destructive  of  colonization.  I  confess 
I  do  not  understand  him,  sir.  Hear  him  :  "  Slavery 
is  an  evil,  a  great  evil" — it  was  severely  felt  as 
such.  And  yet  he  hails  the  action  of  abolitionists, 
because,  in  his  judgment,  it  has  resulted  in  riveting 
the  chains  of  slavery — this  admitted  evil — more 
durably.     How  is  this? 

Dr.  Smith  interrupted  for  explanation.  He 
insisted  that  Mr.  C.  was  in  error,  and  wished  to 
correct  him. 

Mr.  Collins.  I  do  n't  stand  here  as  a  gladiator, 
merely  to  gain  a  victory  over  Dr.  Smith.  If  I 
am  in  error,  put  me  right. 

Dr.  Smith.  I  stated  awhile  ago  that  I  should 
be  able  to  put  the  brother  right  in  every  thing; 
and  if  the  brethren  will  let  me  take  my  notes,  I 
will  try  and  put  him  right  in  the  premises. 


M.  E,  Church,  South,  85 


Mr.  Collins.  I  was  going  on  to  say,  sir,  that  I 
do  not  come  here  to  win  any  laurels  from  Dr.  Smith, 
even  if  I  had  the  power  to  do  it.  I  came  here  in 
defense  of  the  Baltimore  Conference.  If  I  have 
committed  an  error,  it  is  unintentional;  but  I  am 
satisfied  I  have  committed  no  fundamental  error 
this  morning.  All  I  want  is  to  meet  the  question 
on  Discipline,  as  set  forth  in  the  able  argument  of 
my  friend,  and  all  the  desire  I  have  on  the  subject 
is  to  put  the  matter  in  its  right  light,  and  then  I 
am  sure  this  appeal  will  be  dismissed.  I  would 
just  remark,  in  conclusion,  here,  that  we  were  not 
ignoi^ant  of  the  Laws  of  Maryland.  The  note  of 
Mr.  Merrick,  which  was  read  here  yesterday,  was 
before  us,  but  as  a  Conference  we  were  acting  on 
simple  order.  It  was  referred  to  a  committee,  and 
is  therefore  to  be  considered  as  having  had  our 
action  upon  it. 

We  come  now,  in  the  next  place,  to  state  the 
grounds  on  which  we  rest  the  defense  of  the  Bal- 
timore Conference  in  this  matter. 

First.  Because  the  Discipline  of  our  Church 
has  been  violated  by  Mr.  Harding.  We  hold  that 
he  violated  the  Discipline  in  refusing  to  manumit 
his  slaves,  in  a  case  where  he  could  do  it,  and 
would  not.  This  is  one  ground.  I  need  here  but 
refer  to  my  former  remarks  to  show  that  the  law 
will  admit  of  manumission.  Such  was  the  course 
pursued,  that  he  seemed  to  court  martyrdom,  and 


86  Organization  of  ike 

in  a  rude  manner  denounced  that  venerable  body 
as  ultra  abolitionists.  I  would  not  have  brought 
in  this  irrelative  matter  had  not  such  been  brought 
in  yesterday. 

Secondly.  Because  Mr.  Harding  entered  into 
this  difficulty  voluntarily.  It  was  his  own  act, 
under  circumstances  of  great  and  high  aggrava- 
tion. There  are  some  cases  in  which  necessity  can 
be  fairly  plead,  where  the  parties  are  residents  in 
slaveholding  States — in  such  instances  the  parties 
may  claim  something  in  mitigation.  But  for  a 
man  who  was  once  free  from  slavery,  and  knowing 
all  the  consequences  that  would  result  from  such 
action,  voluntarily  to  involve  himself  in  it,  makes 
it  a  very  different  case.  I  hope  the  Conference 
will  bear  this  distinctly  in  mind.  He  w^as  no 
slaveholder  w^hen  the  Baltimore  Conference  re- 
ceived him  on  trial.  They  ordained  him  a  deacon 
and  elder;  and  well  he  knew  that  he  could  never 
have  gone  into  orders  had  he  been  a  slaveholder. 
And  I  hold  it  to  be  the  highest  breach  of  trust,  for 
a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  after  being  put  in  pos- 
session of  all  ministerial  power,  to  forfeit  his 
solemn  oath  of  allegiance,  and  do  an  act  which  he 
w^ell  knows  will  be  an  insult  to  his  brethren,  and 
a  contravention  of  the  Discipline  he  has  vowed  to 
preserve.  I  say,  sir,  I  hold  it  to  be  a  high  offense 
and  breach  of  trust  for  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ 
thus  to  act.     Where  v/as  the  compulsion?     Why 


M.  K  Church,  South.  87 

did  he,  comparatively  a  young  man,  thus  violate 
the  pledge  solemnly  given  to  his  fathers  in  the 
gospel?  Why  run  counter  to  the  will  of  the 
whole  Conference,  and  throAV  the  apple  of  discord 
into  that  body,  and  seek  to  foment  disunion  among 
its  members?  There  was  no  reason — no  necessity 
for  it.  He  might  have  been  removed  the  next 
year  to  another  station.  It  was,  I  repeat,  a  breach 
of  trust  of  no  ordinary  character  thus  to  fly  in  the 
face  of  the  Church  and  his  brethren.  And  this 
he  did  voluntarily  and  of  his  own  accord.  Sir,  I 
hold  that  no  Methodist  preacher  has  a  right  to  do 
just  as  he  pleases.  Even  in  the  choice  of  a  wife 
he  is  under  obligations  to  make  a  prudent  choice, 
and  take  counsel  of  his  aged  brethren.  No,  sir, 
not  even  in  the  delicate  matter  of  marriage  has  a 
Methodist  preacher  a  right  to  do  as  he  pleases. 
The  character  and  standing  of  the  Conference  are 
in  some  measure  in  his  keeping,  and  he  cannot  at 
will  shake  off  the  obligation,  and  trifle  with  the 
trust  that  he  himself  has  solicited,  and  which  has 
been  placed  in  his  charge  in  perfect  confidence  and 
good  faith. 

Thirdly.  Because  he  did  it  with  his  eyes  open. 
He  can  plead  no  ignorance  here.  He  knew  the 
law  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  which  he  has 
pleaded  in  his  defense  here.  And  he  also  knew 
what  ought  to  have  been  with  him  of  preeminent 
importance,  the  law  of  the  Baltimore  Conference. 


88  Organization  of  the 

All  this  he  knew,  and  that  I  may  not  appear  to 
overstate  my  points,  I  beg  permission  to  have 
read  from  our  journal  a  case  in  point.  It  was  that 
of  Brother  Hansberger.  [Action  of  the  Balti- 
more Conference  in  that  case  read,  as  recorded  in 
the  journals,  by  the  Secretary.  It  was  a  similar 
case,  in  which  the  Conference  had  made  a  like 
requisition,  and  the  member  had  submitted.] 

Mr.  Collins  continued.  The  appellant  had  this 
case  before  his  eyes  when  he  entered  upon  the 
engagement  and  married  these  slaves.  Such  reso- 
lutions, passed  by  the  Baltimore  Conference,  ought 
to  have  deterred  him  from  taking  this  step.  One 
of  them  goes  to  say,  that  if  any  brother  do 
thus  act  in  disregard  of  the  wishes  of  the 
Conference  in  this  matter,  he  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  contumacy.  Yet,  with  this  resolution 
before  him,  exposing  himself  to  the  charge  of  con- 
tumacy, he  involved  himself  and  the  Conference 
in  this  difficulty. 

Fourthly.  Because,  by  becoming  a  slaveholder, 
he  rendered  himself  unavailable  to  us  as  a  travel- 
ing preacher. 

The  Baltimore  Conference  is  composed  of  slave- 
holding  and  non-slaveholding  territory,  in  nearly 
equal  proportions.  As  a  slaveholder,  in  the  non- 
slaveholding  portion  of  the  Conference,  they  would 
not  hear  him  preach.  He  would  have  to  be  con- 
fined entirely  to  the  slaveholding  section.     And 


M,  E,  Church,  South.  89 

if  this  course  were  sanctioned,  there  would  be 
increased  difficulty  entailed  upon  the  appointing 
power  of  the  Church  in  keeping  one  set  of  men 
perpetually  in  each  section  of  the  Conference. 
Nor  is  this  all.  It  would  have  a  direct  tendency 
to  locality,  and  w^ould  thus  strike  at  the  very  root 
of  our  itinerant  system;  and  no  man  has  a  right 
to  involve  himself  so  as  to  confine,  necessarily,  his 
labors  to  any  one  portion  of  the  w^ork,  thus  vir- 
tually giving  up  his  relation  as  an  itinerant  minis- 
ter, and  rendering  himself  unavailable.  We  could 
then  have  nothing  to  do  wdth  him,  but  to  get  rid 
of  him  as  easily  as  we  could,  and  pray  God  to  fill 
his  place  with  some  one  who  wall  not  bring  this 
discordance  among  us.  I  beg  the  Conference  to 
look  well  to  this  single  point  connected  with 
slavery.  He  would  have  been  to  us  a  semi-local 
preacher.  Ought  this  to  be  sustained?  Are  there 
not  tendencies  enough  already  to  locality  in  our 
system  without  increasing  them?  And  ought  such 
an  obstruction  as  that  in  which  Harding  has  in- 
volved himself  to  be  forced  upon  a  Conference 
which  has  always  repudiated  it?  We  want  no 
such  restraints;  and  because  we  do  not,  we  have 
placed  this  brother  in  the  situation  he  occupies. 

Our  fifth,  and  last  reason,  is  this :  Because  of 
the  position  the  Baltimore  Conference  has  ever 
occupied  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  And  I  wish 
to  define  this  position,  that  it  may  be  clearly  and 


90  Organization  of  the 

correctly  understood.  The  Baltimore  Conference 
never  has  sanctioned  the  connection  of  any  of  its 
members  with  slavery.  It  has  been  tried  by  mar- 
riage contracts,  but  that  plan  failed.  It  has  been 
tried  also  by  other  means,  but  they  also  failed;  and 
never,  remotely  or  directly,  and  in  no  sense,  have 
they  affected  our  integrity.  The  Bjdtimore  Con- 
ference has  maintained  her  independence  at  all 
times,  and  means  to  maintain  it.  And  in  taking 
this  position  she  is  fortified  by  the  Discipline — call 
it  conservative  or  what  you  will.  She  is  on  the 
old  Methodist  basis,  where  she  was  first  put — on 
the  ground  on  which  she  was  first  planted. 

We  had  a  definition  yesterday  of  conservatism, 
and  I  thought  it  the  strangest  I  ever  heard  in  my  life. 
If  the  prosecutor  be  a  conservative,  convinced  of 
the  great  evil  of  slavery,  why,  I  beg  of  him,  will 
he  force  this  thing  upon  us  when  we  do  not  want 
it?  We  have  taken  no  new  ground  on  this  subject. 
We  are  just  where  we  always  were — standing  as 
a  breakwater  to  pro-slavery  in  the  South,  and  the 
waves  of  abolitionism  from  the  North.  I  know 
that  this  has  been  sneered  at,  and  much  sarcasm 
has  been  spent  upon  it,  but  it  is  nevertheless  true. 
We  have  not  been  propelled  to  our  present  posi- 
tion either  by  the  North  or  the  South.  We  are 
just  where  the  venerable  and  venerated  Asbury 
and  our  fathers  were.  Brother  Smith  has  been 
largely  professing  conservatism !     But  what  sort 


M.  E.  Church,  South  91 

of  conservatism  is  it?  He  admits  that  slavery  is 
a  great  evil,  and  yet  is  favorable  to  perpetuating 
it,  and  forcing  it  upon  a  body  that  always  repu- 
diated it.  'Tis  a  strange  conservatism!  We 
know  it  not.  It  never  had  an  existence  in  the 
Baltimore  Conference.  We  cannot  comprehend 
it,  and  we  would  not  if  we  could.  I  am  not  for 
any  violent  measure  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  I 
firmly  believe  that  if  this  matter  had  been  left 
alone  and  untouched,  such  is  the  influence  of  Meth- 
odism and  other  means,  that,  ere  this  day,  the 
States  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  would  have  made 
considerable  advance  in  gradual  emancipation.  It 
is  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel — the  diffusion 
of  the  benevolent  spirit  of  Christianity,  that  the 
rigors  of  slavery  have  been  abated;  and  by  the 
continuation  of  such  means  shall  the  broad,  ex- 
pansive principles  of  Christian  liberty  be  promul- 
gated until  the  spirit  of  freedom  find  a  shrine  in 
every  cabin,  and  a  home  in  every  heart.  I  love 
the  negro.  My  first  recollections — those  infantile 
associations  that  perish  not  amid  the  rougher  con- 
flicts of  life — are  of  a  negro  who  nursed  me.  I 
was  raised  among  them,  and  I  know  how  to  love 
them.  But  let  such  love  be  shown,  not  by  violent 
measures  for  their  deliverance  from  bondage,  but 
by  carrying,  in  the  true  spirit  of  Methodist  itin- 
erancy and  conservatism,  the  gospel  to  their  cabins 
— by  going  to  the  poor  African^  and  praying  for 


92  Organization  of  the  ' 

him  and  with  him — by  visiting  the  poor  and  needy 
among  them,  the  widow  and  the  fatherless,  the 
sick  and  in  prison !  Yes,  sir,  that  is  the  man  for  me, 
who  will  thus  '^show  me  his  faith  by  his  works." 
We  had  the  vessel  of  colonization  and  gradual 
emancipation,  fair  and  beautiful,  and  in  fine  trim, 
gliding  swiftly  and  gracefully  across  the  limpid 
waters,  bounding  from  wave  to  wave  before  the 
propitious  breeze.  Joyously  and  gracefully  she 
speeds  along  her  trackless  path;  and  the  crested 
wave,  kissing  transiently  her  graceful  bowj  falls 
back  into  the  tranquil  sea — all,  all  is  fair,  and 
bright,  and  prosperous!  But  see!  the  heavens 
are  darkening — the  storm  is  howling — the  sea 
heaves  beneath  the  sudden  tempest,  and  the  waves 
thereof  roar  and  toss  themselves — the  gale  has 
struck  her!  What  then?  Shall  we  desert  her? 
No,  sir;  the  Baltimore  Conference  will  not  do  so  ! 
They  will  not  forsake  the  ship  because  the  gale 
has  struck  her,  and  she  bends  beneath  the  storm! 
They  will  not  rush  below  in  terror  and  fright,  or 
jump  overboard  with  phrensied  despair.  Sir,  they 
know  us  not  who  think  we  are  the  men  to  quail 
in  the  hour  of  danger.  We  will  not  strike  our 
flag.  We  will  not  combine  with  the  enemies  of 
the  African,  either  North  or  South.  We  will 
work  the  ship,  hoping  and  believing  that,  by  the 
blessing  of  God,  we  shall  come  off  successfully  at 
last!      Abolitionism   shall   never   make   us   pro- 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  93 

slavery.  Why,  sir,  we  saw  the  cloud  to  which 
my  friend  refers,  in  its  deepening,  spreading  dark- 
ness— we  heard  the  pealing  thunder  as  it  was 
borne  up  to  us  on  the  wings  of  the  tempest-Avind, 
and  beheld  the  lurid  glare  of  the  lightning's  flash ; 
but  we  were  not  dismayed.  The  gallant  ship — 
our  good  old  Methodism — has  outridden  many  a 
perilous  storm,  and  will  many  another,  and  despite 
these  passing  dangers  we  mean  to  voyage  in  the  old 
ship  ^^o'er  life's  tempestuous  ocean,"  and  will  never 
leave  her  nor  forsake  her,  for  ours  is  the  right  kind 
of  conservatism.  We  acknowledge,  as  true  con- 
servatives, moral  excellence  and  worth  on  both 
sides.  Some  of  the  best  men  and  women  we  have 
known  have  been  slaveholders,  and  we  are  well 
aware  that  some  of  these  are  slaveholders  of  neces- 
sity. It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  members  of 
the  Baltimore  Conference,  who  have  sustained 
this  measure,  were  mostly  raised  in  slaveholding 
States. 

The  speaker  then  paid  a  just  tribute  to  certain 
members  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  who  had 
manumitted  their  slaves  for  Christianity's  sake, 
and  maintained  that  instead  of  being  held  up  to 
reproach,  that  Conference  was  justly  entitled  to 
the  thanks  of  Methodism  in  all  its  connections. 
He  then  proceeded  to  recapitulate  the  points  which 
he  had  endeavored  to  establish.  He  thought  he 
had  proved  that  the  journal  of  the  Conference  was 


94  Organization  of  the 

correct — that  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Maryland 
admit  of  manumission — that  the  Discipline  of  the 
Church  did  bear  upon  Mr.  Harding's  case — that 
that  Discipline  had  been  violated  by  him — that  he 
was  righteously  liable  to  the  consequences  of  that 
violation — that  he  had  acted  in  the  matter  volun- 
tarily and  contumaciously,  and  that  he  had  ren- 
dered himself  unavailable,  as  a  traveling  preacher, 
to  his  brethren  of  the  Baltimore  Conference. 

And  now,  having  shown  the  reasons  why  the 
Baltimore  Conference  suspended  Mr.  Harding,  he 
(Mr.  C.)  asked,  Would  the  General  Conference 
send  him  back  again  to  them?  He  begged  them 
to  consider  well,  and  with  great  calmness,  before 
they  did  so.  Did  they  wish  to  make  another 
slaveholding  Conference?  Admit  one  slaveholder, 
and  the  Baltimore  Conference  has  no  longer  the 
independent  position  they  could  now  irreproacha- 
bly assume!  Once  break  down  the  barrier,  and 
they  must  admit  others !  Would  they  thus  hum- 
ble their  fathers  in  Christ,  and  thus  trample  on 
old  Methodism?  He  trusted  they  would  not,  but 
w^ould  assist  them  still  to  occupy  the  ground  they 
had,  by  much  sacrifice,  and  with  much  difficulty, 
been  able  to  take.  If  they  did '  change  their 
ground,  it  was  hard  to  say  where  they  would  stop. 
Their  young  men  would  by  marriage  become  slave- 
holders, and  the  principles  which  the  Baltimore 
Conference  so  long  had  held  would  be  sacrificed 


M.  E.   Church,  South.  95 

entirely.  The  question  was  a  momentous  one,  not 
so  much  between  Mr.  Harding  and  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  but  between  the  Baltimore  Conference 
and  all  future  candidates  for  the  ministry  in  their 
Conference.  He  was  aware  that  appeals  would 
be  made  to  their  sympathies.  In  this  the  prose- 
cution would  have  the  advantage.  But  they  must 
also  remember  that  the  appellant  by  his  conduct 
had  proved  that  he  did  not  place  much  value  upon 
his  relation  to  his  fathers  and  brethren,  and  there- 
fore on  that  score  he  could  claim  really  nothing. 

He  did  not  wish  to  wound  the  feelings  of  the 
Southern  brethren.  Among  them  were  many 
venerable  for  their  talents,  and  piety,  and  useful- 
ness in  the  Church  of  God ;  but  while  he  would  not 
be  the  willing  instrument  of  wounding  their  feelings, 
he  was  compelled  to  say  what  he  had  said,  that 
he  might  put  the  act  of  the  Conference  he  repre- 
sented in  its  right  and  proper  view  before  them. 
He  prayed  the  blessing  of  God  upon  his  Southern 
as  well  as  his  Northern  brethren,  and  trusted  they 
should  live  and  labor  on  in  love  and  friendship, 
and  that  time  would  mellow  down  all  asperities  on 
the  painful  subject  which  was  agitating  the  Con- 
nection, so  that  they  might  dwell  together  as 
one  family  on  earth,  and  then  each,  from  North 
and  South,  and  East  and  West,  should  enter 
triumphantly  into  the  heaven  they  were  seek- 
ing, where  all  minor  distinctions  would  be  swal- 


96  Organization  of  the 

lowed  up  and  lost  in  the  beatific  contemplation  of 
Him  who  had  washed  them  from  sin  in  his  own 
blood,  and  made  them  kings  and  priests  unto  God 
forever. 

Mr.  President,  the  ground  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference  is  unquestionabl}^  the  true  one.  She 
is  truly  conservative.  She  never  has  proclaimed 
— never  will — anywhere,  or  at  any  time,  or  under 
any  circumstances,  that  "slavery  is  a  sin  under 
all  circumstances;"  while  at  the  same  time  she 
wishes  to  preserve  the  members  of  her  body  dis- 
connected with  slavery,  that  the  influence  of  their 
example  may  tell  silently  and  surely  against  its 
perpetuation.  The  head  and  front  of  our  offending 
— that  for  which  we  are  arraigned  at  the  bar  of  this 
General  Conference — is  simply  this:  We  wish  to 
keep  slavery  from  our  traveling  ministry.  This 
is  no  new  thing  with  us.  The  effort  made  now 
is  to  effect  a  change  in  the  position  of  the  Balti- 
more Annual  Conference  by  making  it  a  slavehold- 
ing  body.  This,  I  trust,  will  not  be  done.  We 
cannot  sacrifice  our  ground  to  accommodate  Mr. 
Harding,  or  any  other  man  who  may  choose  to 
become  a  slaveholder.  The  issue  of  the  case  be- 
fore us  involves  momentous  consequences,  affecting 
the  whole  Church;  and  in  full  confidence  in  the 
wisdom  and  integrity  of  the  General  Conference, 
we  submit  it  to  their  decision. 

The  President  said  that  any  of  the  Baltimore 


M.  E.   Church,  South.  97 

Conference  delegation  were  now  at  liberty  to  speak 
on  the  subject,  and 

Mr.  Slicer  rose  to  address  the  Conference.  He 
said  he  had  been  in  doubt  whether  any  other  of 
the  delegation  besides  the  brother  who  had  been 
specially  intrusted  with  the  case,  ought  to  address 
them  on  this  subject.  He  would,  however,  occupy 
their  attention  briefly.  The  memorial  of  certain 
local  preachers  had  been  frequently  referred  to. 
The  brethren  memorialized  the  several  Confer- 
ences either  to  right  them,  or  set  them  off.  But 
the  people  were  not  willing  to  be  set  off,  and  when 
the  General  Conference  sat  in  Philadelphia  in 
1832,  the  people  south  of  the  Rappahannock 
River  memorialized  the  Conference  not  to  let  the 
Virginia  people  have  them.  And  if  the  people 
there  desired  the  ministration  of  the  preachers  of 
the  Baltimore  Conference,  and  not  the  Virginia 
Conference,  was  it  not  likely  that  the  friends  north 
of  that  river  w^ould  have  still  stronger  sentiments 
on  the  subject?  Something  had  been  said  about 
*4oaves  and  fishes."  Now  the  people  referred  to 
were  a  clever,  intelligent  people,  but  their  territory 
was  by  no  means  the  most  desirable  portion  under 
the  care  of  the  Baltimore  Conference. 

The  reverend  gentleman  then  gave  a  geograph- 
ical description  of  the  country,  and  said  that  the 
Baltimore  Conference  was  in  now^ise  disposed  to 
part  with  them,  unless  they  (the  people)  wished  it. 
5 


98  Organizatiom  of  the 

They  did  not  intend  that  any  number  of  local 
preachers  should  separate  them,  but  when  a  ma- 
jority of  the  people  wished  it,  it  should  be  done. 
The  people  there  were  an  admirable  people,  and  a 
conservative  people,  too,  having  been  supplied 
with  antislavery  preachers — so  true  was  it  that 
the  people  received  their  complexion  from  the 
ministry.  At  Whitemarsh,  where  the  Roman 
Catholic  priests  own  slaves  almost  without  num- 
ber, and  sell  them  ad  libitum^  and  pay  the  money 
into  the  "Lord's  treasury,"  in  that  whole  country 
slavery  exists  under  the  worst  forms.  The  rev- 
erend gentleman  gave  a  farther  analysis  of  the 
country  and  the  state  of  feeling  in  the  various 
districts,  illustrating  his  position,  that  the  charac- 
ter of  the  people  depended  on  the  character  of  the 
ministry,  and  showed  that  the  progress  of  eman- 
cipation had  been  from  North  to  South. 

He  then  proceeded  to  notice  the  position  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference  to  the  appellant  before  them. 
He  (the  appellant)  was  well  aware  that  his  be- 
coming a  slaveholder  would  be  a  disqualification 
for  his  usefulness  among  the  people.  He  (Mr. 
Slicer)  had  known  Mr.  Harding  from  his  youth 
up,  had  preached  in  his  father's  house,  and  was 
willing  to  make  any  sacrifice  but  of  principle  to 
meet  his  case,  and  to  bring  him  into  compliance 
with  the  wishes  of  the  Conference.  He  must  say, 
however,  that  all  the  labor  and  anxiety  of  a  com- 


M.  K  Church,  South.  99 

mittee  appointed  for  that  purpose  was  met  by  the 
appellant,  not  only  with  no  sympathy,  but  with 
utter  contempt  and  disregard.  If,  however,  he 
thought  it  more  important  to  maintain  his  position 
than  yield  to  the  wishes  of  his  brethren,  the  elec- 
tion was  with  him.  The  Conference  could  do 
without  him  quite  as  well  as  he  could  do  without 
the  Conference.  If  he  were  sent  back  twenty 
times,  the  Baltimore  Conference  would  not  change 
its  ground;  and  he  (Mr.  S.)  looked  confidently, 
as  he  prayed  earnestly,  for  the  day  when  this 
dark  spot  should  be  wiped  away  from  this  free 
country. 

Mr.  Griffith  had  no  intention  to  make  a  speech 
on  the  subject,  but  he  wished  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  Conference  to  a  few  facts  connected  with 
the  matter  under  their  notice.  It  had  been  said 
that  the  Baltimore  Conference  occupied  a  territory 
nearly  equally  divided  between  slaveholding  and 
non-slaveholding  States,  and  embracing  part  of 
Virginia;  yet  the  Baltimore  Conference  had  al- 
ways contrived  to  avoid  any  agitation  of  the  ques- 
tion among  the  people  of  Virginia,  and  had  never 
violated  any  of  the  laws  of  that  State;  and  from 
this  he  thought  a  lesson  might  be  learned.  Yes- 
terday, the  brother,  in  advocating  the  cause  of 
the  appellant,  had  said,  "only  slavery  where  we 
must,"  as  if  he  intended  to  make  the  impression 
that  ^;his  young  man  was  of  necessity  connected 


100  Organizaiion  of  the 

with  slavery — tied  hand  and  foot.  Now  this  was 
far  from  being  the  fact — there  was  not  a  word  of 
truth  in  it.  He  could  disentangle  himself  in  an 
hour  if  he  liked^  the  Laws  of  Maryland  notwith- 
standing. In  point  of  fact,  the  law  against  man- 
umission is  inoperative.  It  would  be  indeed 
strange  if  a  freeman  had  not  the  right  to  make 
that  disposal  of  his  property  which  he  might 
choose  to  make.  Maryland  never  had  said  that  a 
slave  might  be  taken  up  and  sold — she  never  had 
declared  that  slaves  were  property;  and  then  in 
the  same  breath,  that  men  should  not  do  what  they 
thought  fit  with  their  OAvn  property,  and  that  she 
assumed  the  right  to  do  that  which  she  forbade 
the  owner  doing.  No,  sir,  they  know  that  a  man 
has  a  right  to  set  his  slaves  free — they  know  the 
illegality  and  imperfection  of  any  act  to  the  con- 
trar}^ — and  yet  they  try  to  control  it,  and  ward 

off  the  consequences  of  this    kind   of  he 

hardly  knew  how  to  designate  such  kind  of  legis- 
lation. 

One  word  farther.  That  young  brother  was 
perfectly  at  liberty  to  emancipate  his  slaves  at 
any  time  he  liked.  No  man  in  the  State  of  Ma- 
ryland doubted  his  right.  Slaves  were  set  free  all 
over  the  State.  And  if  the  Virginia  Conference 
had  been  as  careful  to  preserve  the  integrity  of 
her  own  original  position  as  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference, she  would  now  have  been  as  free  from  the 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  101 

great  evil  as  the  Baltimore  Conference  was.  And 
why  not?  The  Baltimore  Conference  keeps  ter- 
ritory side  by  side  with  the  Virginia  Conference. 
Nothing  but  the  Rappahannock  BiA^er  divides 
them.  And  the  Baltimore  Conference  had  occu- 
pied this  territory  with  preachers  free  from 
slavery;  and  you  will,  on  examining  the  statistics, 
find  that  we  have  had,  at  least,  equal  success  with 
our  Virginia  brethren. 

At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Griffith's  remarks,  the 
President  inquired  whether  the  delegation  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference  had  concluded,  when  Dr. 
Smith  said  he  hoped  not,  for  they  had  not  yet  at- 
tempted to  show  that  the  appellant  was  the  owner 
of  a  single  slave. 

Mr.  Collins.  This  is  not  the  place.  He  has 
already  acknowledged  that  he  was  so  involved  in 
slaveholdino;  that  he  could  not  2:et  rid  of  it. 

Mr.  Harding.     I  do  not  admit  it — I  deny  it. 

Mr.  Collins.  What  did  the  Presiding  Elder  and 
the  record  on  the  journal  say?  Why,  that  Mr. 
Harding  has  "come  into  the  possession  of  several 
slaves." 

There  were  a  variety  of  ways  in  which  a  man 
could  become  connected  with  slavery — one  of 
which  was  by  a  marriage  contract,  of  all  other 
courses  the  most  dishonorable  and  hateful.  This 
shifting  it  upon  the  woman  was  adding  meanness 
to  injury,  and  was  nothing  but  a  mere  special  plea 


102  Organizaiion  of  the 

— a  disingenuous  and  disreputable  quibble.  He 
(the  appellant)  gets  the  benefit,  and  has  the  con- 
trol of  the  property,  and  is  therefore  in  fact  a 
slaveholder.  Let  them  not  hang  their  defense  on 
such  a  mere  technicality. 

Mr.  Sargent.  The  whole  action  proceeded  on 
the  admitted  fact  that  he  was  a  slaveholder;  and 
the  fact  was  never  denied,  and  this  plea  is  entirely 
an  after-thought. 

Mr.  Collins  said  that  an  honorable  man  would 
hate  to  get  off  by  any  such  quibble.  The  man 
never  denied  that  he  was  a  slaveholder.  And  this 
was  also  in  direct  opposition  to  the  plea  set  up 
yesterday,  namely,  that  he  offered  to  send  these 
slaves  to  Liberia  or  any  free  State.  If  he  had  no 
slaves,  either  jointly  or  otherwise,  why  make  that 
plea,  and  try  to  get  off  by  saying  that  he  had 
consented  to  remove  them?  And  why  pledge  his 
consent  if  he  had  no  ownership?  Let  them  meet 
the  case  honestly  and  fairly.  They  were  not  ar- 
guing the  matter  before  a  set  of  quibbling  lawyers. 
This  was  a  mere  ru^e.  But  it  would  not  do.  The 
very  law  they  had  appealed  to  was  against  them. 
By  Section  2,  it  made  him  joint  owner  wdth  his 
wife  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  and  the  appellant 
knew  it.  Very  sorry  was  he  (Mr.  C.)  that  the 
prosecutor  should  think  it  necessary  to  resort  to 
such  a  quibble. 

After  Mr,  Collins  closed  his  speech,  some  con- 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  103 

versation  arose  respecting  the  time  at  wliicli  the 
rejoinder  should  be  heard,  but  the  Conference  ad- 
journed without  coming  to  any  conclusion. 

On  the  following  day,  Friday,  May  10,  by  con- 
sent of  the  appellant's  advocate,  Mr.  Collins  again 
took  the  floor.  He  acknowledged  the  courtesy 
and  Christian  temper  manifested  by  Dr.  Smith. 
He  wished  to  touch  one  or  two  points  before  he 
was  ruled  out  by  the  discipline  regulating  the 
Conference.  A  rumor  prevailed,  he  had  learned, 
among  the  members  of  the  Conference,  that  there 
were  at  present  three  or  four  slaveholders  in 
the  Baltimore  Conference.  He  (Mr.  C.)  denied, 
distinctly  and  fully,  that  such  was  the  case — they 
had  not,  nor  would  they  have,  a  slaveholder  among 
them.  He  then  glanced  at  the  various  cases  that 
had  come  before  them,  as  an  Annual  Conference, 
and  showed  that  in  every  case  they  had  treated 
them  exactly  as  they  had  dealt  with  Mr.  Harding. 

Messrs.  Davis,  Griffith,  and  Slicer  emphatically 
denied  the  truth  of  such  a  rumor,  and  indorsed  all 
Mr.  C.  had  said  upon  the  subject. 

Mr.  McMahon  rose  to  order.  He  objected  to 
this  answering  all  the  gossip  they  might  hear  out 
of  door.  If  they  were  all  to  do  so,  he  knew  not 
where  it  might  stop. 

Bishop  Waugh  thought,  as  it  was  connected  in 
some  degree  with  the  appeal  before  the  Conference, 
in  which  the  Conference  had  allowed  some  latitude 


104  Organization  of  the 

to  both  sides,  it  was  not  necessary  to  interrupt  the 
speaker.  There  was  hardly  any  departure  yet 
that  could  call  for  interference. 

Mr.  Collins  resumed.  He  wished  also  to  cor- 
rect another  wrong  impression.  It  was  partially 
believed  that  the  Baltimore  Conference,  in  sus- 
pending Mr.  Harding,  had  acted  in  ignorance  of 
the  law  of  1843.  He  be2:2red  to  correct  this  mis- 
conception.  They  had  before  them  the  opinion 
of  Justice  Merrick  with  re^'ard  to  this  verv  hiw. 
But  he  would  say  boldly,  that  if  the  law  had  been 
tenfold  w^hat  it  is,  if  it  had  actually,  outright  and 
downright,  without  any  possibility  of  avoiding  it, 
taken  these  slaves  from  Harding's  control,  the 
Conference  would  still  have  acted  just  as  they 
did;  because  they  did  not  intend  to  change  their 
ground,  and  could  not  pretend  to  alter  their  views 
with  every  shifting  of  the  Legislature.  Besides, 
the  Legislature  did  not  compel  Mr.  Harding  to 
become  a  slaveholder. 

Since  the  discussion,  he  had  spoken  with  several 
preachers  who  were  over  here  from  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  and  they  all  agreed  that  Mr.  Harding 
never  gave  the  pledge  he  said  he  did;  so  he  (Mr. 
C.)  thought  that  point  was  disposed  of.  As  to 
the  question  of  ownership,  it  was  plainly  laid 
down  in  the  laws  of  the  State  that  the  husband 
had  joint  ownership.  The  law  was  designed  sim- 
ply to  give  the  wife  such  control  over  her  property 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  105 

that  it  should  not  be  taken  from  her  for  any  debts 
or  contracts  of  her  husband ;  and  if  the  lady  is  a 
slaveholder,  the  husband  is  one  too.  The  gentle- 
man went  through  the  different  sections  of  the 
law  with  great  ability,  dissecting  and  analyzing 
them  with  much  skill  and  minuteness,  and  then 
touched  upon  the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  to 
show  that  it  was  more  positive  in  requiring  a  trav- 
eling preacher  to  manumit  his  slaves  than  it  was 
with  local  preachers  and  other  officers  of  the 
Church.  He  then  proceeded  to  show  that  public 
opinion  at  Baltimore,  and  throughout  most  of  the 
territory  under  the  charge  of  that  Conference,  was 
in  their  favor;  and  that  there  w^as  no  practical 
difficulty  in  the  way  of  manumitting  slaves  in 
Maryland,  for  it  was  constantly  done,  and  four- 
fifths  of  the  colored  people  in  Baltimore  were  free. 
And  now,  he  inquired,  were  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference to  be  made  to  lick  the  dust  at  the  feet  of 
the  appellant,  or  were  they  to  be  supported  in 
their  action,  as  they  ought  to  be?  Would  the 
General  Conference  say  to  the  Baltimore  Confer- 
ence, after  all  her  prayers,  and  efforts,  and  sacri- 
fices, and  reproach,  that  she  was  to  take  into  her 
bosom  a  slaveholding  minister?  If  so,  the  conse- 
quences would  be  calamitous  in  the  extreme.  The 
issue  was  fairly  before  them,  and,  whatever  were 
the  consequences,  it  must  be  fairly  met. 

He  then  made  a  most  earnest  and  affectionate 
5* 


106  Organkation  of  the 

appeal  to  his  Southern  brethren,  calling  upon  them, 
by  their  avowal  of  the  evil  of  slavery,  not  to  force 
the  "evil"  upon  a  Conference  that  had  hitherto 
kept  clear  of  it;  and  addressing  the  other  two 
sections  of  the  Church,  he  implored  them  by  their 
love  of  order,  and  their  regard  for  discipline,  to 
sustain  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  this  appeal. 

Dr.  Smith  then  rose  to  reply.  He  said.  Sir,  I 
wish  most  particularly  to  disclaim  the  obligations 
the  speakers  have  felt  themselves  free  to  express 
for  the  indulgence  extended  them.  It  was  no  tax 
to  my  feelings  to  entertain  the  request  to  make 
an  explanation  this  morning,  and  no  risk  to  my 
cause  to  grant  it.  Although  the  "explanation" 
amounted  to  a  second  speech  on  the  merits  of  the 
case,  and  occupied  some  two  hours  or  more,  yet  I 
may  safely  commit  the  w^hole  of  it  to  our  faithful 
reporter.  If  I  understand  myself,  few  things  would 
have  afforded  me  more  pleasure  than  for  the  coun- 
sel, Mr.  Collins,  both  on  his  own  account  and  the 
reputation  of  his  Conference,  to  have  recovered 
his  position  before  this  body  and  the  whole  Church. 
No  one,  I  am  sure,  will  doubt  his  ability.  He 
has  exhausted  his  resources  both  of  argument 
and  eloquence.  He  has  been  indulged,  both  by 
myself  and  the  Conference,  in  every  advantage  he 
asked.  Still,  sir,  I  feel  satisfied,  from  the  mani- 
fest weakness  of  his  positions,  that  if  he  will  suffer 
the  reporter  to  do  him  justice,  he  will  find  reason 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  107 

to  be  ashamed  of  his  cause.  From  various  indi- 
cations on  this  floor,  there  may  be  good  reason  to 
fear  that  the  cause  of  the  appellant  finds  but  little 
sympathy  with  many.  The  American  Methodist 
Church,  however,  may  give  a  different  verdict. 
The  counsel  may  find  as  much  cause  ultimately 
to  cower  under  this  decision  as  he  now  finds  to 
triumph  under  the  strange  sympathy  which  his 
offensive  doctrines  have  met  with  in  this  body. 
Before  I  enter  upon  the  true  issues  before  the 
Conference,  I  must  notice  several  points  which 
the  counsel  and  those  who  have  come  to  his  aid 
have  dw^elt  upon  as  important  to  their  cause.  I 
shall  treat  them  as  preliminary  to  this  discussion. 
1.  The  speaker.  Brother  Collins,  has  compli- 
mented me — in  very  flattering  terms  to  be  sure — on 
what  he  considers  my  conversion  fi'om  pro-slavery 
to  antislavery  principles.  Sir,  this  was  intended 
for  effect.  The  impression  may  be  made  that  I 
did  not  give  my  actual  opinions  on  the  subject  of 
slavery.  This  is  a  short  way  of  avoiding  my 
argument.  Why  did  not  the  speaker  invalidate 
my  position,  by  showing  that  slavery  in  its  cir- 
cumstances is  necessarily  sinful,  and,  therefore, 
the  course  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference 
should  be  sustained?  Why,  sir?  Because  there 
was  a  much  sounder  discretion  in  declining  to 
meet  my  arguments,  and  cover  his  retreat  by  the 
intimation  that  I  did  not  myself  believe  the  doc- 


108  Organization  of  the 

trines  on  which  the  vindication  of  Mr.  Harding 
rests.  But,  sir,  I  cannot  yield  this  advantage. 
My  arguments,  showing  that  slavery  is  not  neces- 
sarily sinful,  are  unanswered — indeed,  untouched. 
And  until  this  be  done,  the  action  of  the  Balti- 
more Conference  is  wdiolly  indefensible.  Jf  moral 
tmyitude,  'more  or  less,  does  not  necessarily  attach 
to  slavery,  the  decision  of  this  court  of  ministers, 
depriving  a  member  of  their  body  of  holy  orders, 
simply  because  of  his  union  by  marriage  with  a 
lady  w^ho  held  property  in  slaves,  is  an  outrage 
upon  the  feelings  of  the  appellant,  an  indignity  to 
a  very  large  portion  of  the  Church,  and  a  reflec- 
tion on  the  judgment  of  the  Baltimore  Conference. 
Sir,  I  should  appreciate  much  more  highly  the  po- 
sition of  the  speaker  had  he  met  my  argument 
fairly.  But  I  am  converted,  it  is  said!  When? 
Where?  or  at  what  altar?  I  honestly  confess  I 
know  nothing  about  it.  It  is  a  change  I  never 
felt.  I  never,  on  any  former  occasion,  attempted 
an  extended  expression  of  opinion  before  this 
body  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  On  the  subject 
of  abolition  I  remember  to  have  made  a  remark 
on  the  floor  of  the  General  Conference  of  1832. 
I  will  quote  it  here :  ^^ Abolition  is  now  in  its  q^^ 
state — now  you  can  put  your  foot  upon  it,  and 
crush  it;  but  if,  instead  of  this,  you  breathe  upon 
it  the  warm  breath  of  your  approbation,  it  shall 
hatch  a  scorpion  that  shall  sting  you  to  the  heart." 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  109 

And  now,  sir,  I  ask  Avhether  my  prediction  is  in 
a  Avay  to  be  verified  or  not?  Twelve  years  only 
have  passed  away,  and  a  purely  abolition  move- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Con- 
ference finds  favor  in  this  body.  Yes,  sir,  such 
are  the  indications  that  it  may  be  well  if  we  be 
not  on  the  eve  of  division.  Your  decision  in  this 
case  may  be  the  knell  of  our  long-cherished  union. 
I  affirmed,  in  my  opening  speech,  that  the  South 
was  not  pro-slavery,  but  antislavery.  The  Geor- 
gia and  South  Carolina  Conference  delegation, 
with  every  other  member  from  the  South  on  this 
floor,  united  in  a  most  hearty  response  to  the  ap- 
peal I  made  to  them  on  this  point.  This,  too,  is 
seized  upon,  and  these  Conferences  are  also  con- 
gratulated upon  their  conversion.  This  is  based 
chiefly  I  suppose  upon  the  resolutions  adopted  by 
these  Conferences  in  1831,  declaring  that  slavery 
"is  not  a  moral  evil."  But,  sir,  this  argues  no 
change.  They  still  adhere  to  their  position  in  the 
sense — and  a  good  one,  too — in  which  they  used 
the  phrase  "moral  evil."  The  popular  sense  of 
their  resolutions,  as  understood  everywhere,  was 
simply  this,  that  davery  was  not  necessarily  sinful. 
They  still  believe  so.  Sir,  no  other  meaning  was 
ever  attached  to  "  moral  evil,"  as  a  popular  expres- 
sion, until  the  editor  of  the  Christian  Advocate 
and  Journal  thought  proper  to  call  up  a  meaning 
unknown  to  the  popular  mind.     To  raise  a  plat- 


110  Organization  of  the 

form  on  which  the  abolitionists  of  the  North  might 
stand,  without  identifying  themselves  Avith  0. 
Scott,  in  his  extreme  measures  of  reforming  the 
government  of  the  Church,  he  called  up  the  dis- 
tinction between  "moral  evil"  and  sin.  Thus  he 
rallied  the  scattered  forces  of  the  North,  dubbing 
Scott  &  Co.  as  "radico-abolitionists,"  and  the  Simon 
Pures  as  "abolitionists"  merely.  How  far  this 
consolidation  of  Northern  forces  was  done  with  a 
view  to  consequences  Avhich  now  threaten  the 
Church  with  division,  I  cannot  say. 

No,  sir,  we  are  not  converted.  We  stand  on 
the  same  ground  we  have  occupied  from  the  found- 
ation of  the  Church — the  grand  conservative 
ground  laid  by  our  fathers  in  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline. Slavery,  as  it  exists  among  us,  is  "  a  great 
evil;"  and  I  will  add,  to  none  so  great  an  "evil" 
as  to  the  master.  "It  is  not,  however,  necessa- 
rily a  sin."  I  will  add,  it  is  only  a  sin  to  those 
individuals  who  abuse  the  institution.  No,  sir, 
we  have  not  chano^ed  our  sfround.  We  have  no 
hecatomb  of  slaughtered  princi23les  to  offer  upon 
the  altar  of  abolition  devotions.  And  if  they 
would  bind  our  principles,  we  would  point  them  to 
the  prophetic  "he-goat"  in  Daniel's  vision,^as  more 
symbolical  of  the  desolating  effect  of  their  fanati- 
cal measures,  and  say  to  them.  Take  him  for  the 
sacrifice ! 

2.  I  made  a  strong  point  of  the  informality  of 


M,  E,  Church,  South.  Ill 

the  Baltimore  Conference  journals,  claiming  on 
this  ground  that  the  case  be  at  least  returned  for 
a  new  trial.  The  jealous  concern  of  the  counsel 
for  the.  reputation  of  his  Conference  is  peculiarly 
awaked  at  the  indignity  of  such  an  imputation. 
Well,  let  us  see.  The  Discipline  of  our  Church 
requires  that  in  the  trial  of  a  minister,  "regular 
minutes  of  the  trial  shall  be  kept,  including  all  the 
questions  proposed  to  the  witnesses,  with  their 
answers."  According  to  the  statement  of  the 
counsel,  there  was  no  witness  in  the  case  but 
Harding  himself.  Now,  sir,  according  to  the  dis- 
cussion the  other  day,  and  the  argument  of  counsel, 
the  merit  of  this  case  turns  chiefly  upon  this  point 
— Did  Mr.  Harding  pledge  himself  and  his  wife, 
before  the  Conference,  to  send  these  slaves  to 
Africa  or  to  a  free  State,  if  they  would  consent  to 
go?  One  of  the  delegation  distinctly  remembers 
that  he  did  so  pledge  himself  and  his  wife:  the 
others  do  not  remember  to  have  heard  the  pledge. 
All,  however,  agree  that  the  witness  made  many 
statements  before  the  Conference;  some  of  these 
you  have  heard  plead  against  him  by  the  counsel. 
Why,  sir — seeing  he  was  most  unjustly  made  to 
witness  against  himself — why,  I  ask,  do  not  the 
journals  record  his  testimony,  that  he  may  now 
have  the  benefit  of  it?  Are  not  the  journals  de- 
fective in  this  respect?  And  as  a  proof  of  the 
bearing  ofi^this  fact  upon  the  issue,  I  appeal  to 


112  Organization  of  the 

Brother  Tippett.  a  member  of  the  delegation,  had 
Harding  been  thus  understood,  if  it  is  likely  he 
would  have  been  suspended.  Brother  Tippett,  I 
see,  is  silent,  sir.  I  understand  his  silence;  he 
knows  it  to  be  so. 

Mr.  Tippett — from  his  seat — I  deem  it  unnec- 
essary to  answer  now^  (the  time  for  receiving  tes- 
timony having  passed.) 

It  is  not  important  you  should,  sir.  It  might 
involve  you  in  serious  responsibilities.  Your  si- 
lence is  sufficient.  Now,  sir,  can  any  thing  be 
more  plain  than  this,  that  these  journals  are  defec- 
tive, and  that  in  a  point  most  material  to  the  issue 
before  us?  Is  it  not  the  least  we  can  do,  in  jus- 
tice to  the  appellant,  to  send  him  back  for  a  new 
trial?  But,  sir,  the  journals  record  material  facts, 
which  show  the  illegality  and  injustice  of  the 
whole  proceeding  so  clearly,  that  he  is  entitled  to 
be  wholly  released  from  the  suspension.  This  I 
will  show  in  the  proper  place. 

3.  The  next  point  on  which  I  should  make  some 
remarks  is  the  reply  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1840  to  the  memorial  from  Westmoreland, 
Yiro;inia.  The  orio^in  of  this  memorial  I  have  ex- 
plained.  I  read  the  resolution  adopted  by  the 
Conference.  The  counsel  finds  himself  much 
embarrassed  by  this  resolution,  and  contents  him- 
self with  a  flat  denial  that  it  admits  of  any  appli- 
cation to  the  case  of  the  appellant.     He  affirms 


M,  E.   Church,  South.  113 

that  it  applied  exclusively  to  local  preachers. 
That  it  originated  in  the  case  of  local  preachers  is 
admitted.  But  the  report  of  the  committee  is  an 
elaborate  and  most  conclusive  argument  in  support 
of  a  principle  which  applies  to  all  preachers.  The 
argument  is  not  as  to  the  meaning  of  Discipline 
in  relation  to  local  preachers  merely,  as  he  sup- 
poses. The  report  concludes  with  a  resolution, 
which  I  have  before  read,  and  from  which  I  will 
quote  one  clause:  "The  ownership  of  slave  prop- 
erty in  States  or  Territories  where  the  laws  do 
not  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the  liber- 
ated slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  constitutes  no  legal 
barrier  to  the  election  or  ordination  of  ministers 
to  the  various  grades  of  office  known  in  the  minis- 
try of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  "  Va- 
rious grades  af  office!'  Can  language  be  more  ex- 
plicit ?  On  what  authority,  therefore,  can  it  be 
pleaded  that  this  applies  to  local  preachers  onli/? 
That  constitutes  but  one  of  the  grades  of  office. 
Sir,  the  assertion  is  a  gross  absurdity.  I  main- 
tain, therefore,  that  the  meaning  of  Discipline,  by 
this  decision  of  the  General  Conference  of  1840, 
is  settled  in  Mr.  Harding's  favor.  Language  can- 
not more  clearly  warrant  a  conclusion.  And  for 
this  General  Conference  to  sustain  the  Baltimore 
Conference  in  Harding's  case,  is  to  do  it  in  the 
teeth  of  the  Discipline  as  interpreted  by  them- 
selves in  1840.     It  is  to  add  to  the  afflictions  of 


114  Organization  of  the 

the  outraged  brethren  of  Westmoreland,  who 
are  the  more  grievously  wronged  in  this,  that  to 
the  present  time,  the  BaT|more  Conference  have 
continued  to  deny  them  their  rights.  Surely,  sir, 
this  Conference  should  be  held  to  a  rigid  accounta- 
bility for  this  act  of  injustice  to  the  local  brethren 
of  Westmoreland,  and  of  contumacy  to  the  Gen- 
eral  Conference.  But,  instead  of  this,  will  you  em- 
bolden them  in  a  systematic  course  of  wrong-doing, 
by  refusing  to  sustain  the  appeal?     I  hope  not. 

In  this  connection  I  propose  to  notice  several 
particulars  of  a  kindred  character,  introduced  by 
the  counsel.  It  is  affirmed  that  Mr.  Harding's 
relation  to  slavery  rendered  him  "unavailable"  as 
a  Methodist  preacher.  On  this  ground  it  is  ar- 
gued, that  it  was  expedient  to  '' suspend  him,''  be- 
cause the  Conference  is  authorized  (and  accustomed 
so  to  do)  to  locate  men  who  are  unavailable.  That 
is,  sir — to  throw  the  language  into  a  more  logical 
form — because  the  Conference  has  an  aidhority^ 
which  they  are  accustomed  to  exercise,  to  locate 
one  who  is  unavailable  as  a  traveling  preacher, 
(which,  be  it  observed,  leaves  him  in  j^ossession  of 
his  ministerial  orders,)  therefore  it  was  both  legal 
and  expedient  to  suspend  the  appellant,  and  thus 
deprive  him  of  his  ministerial  orders!  Fine  logic 
this!  But,  sir,  on  what  ground  was  Mr.  Harding 
unavailable?  Why,  because  a  part  of  the  Con- 
ference appointments  are  within  a  non-slaveholding 


M.  K  Church,  South.  115 

State.  Well,  sir,  are  all  the  members  of  this  body 
considered  "  unavailable "  whom  it  would  not  be 
prudent  to  send  to  any  part  of  the  v/ork  ?  How 
absurd !  This  Conference  abounds  with  appoint- 
ments to  which  the  appellant  could  be  sent  with 
the  greatest  propriety.  The  plea  is  a  mere  pre- 
text. The  counsel  affirmed  that  "slavery  had 
ceased  ere  this  in  Maryland  if  it  had  been  let 
alone."  True,  sir.  Why,  then,  will  not  the  Bal- 
timore Conference  let  it  alone?  Do  they  let  it 
alone  by  a  systematic  plan  of  proscription  ?  No, 
sir,  no. 

I  charged  the  Baltimore  Conference  with  great 
and  manifest  inconsistency  in  suspending  Mr. 
Harding,  because  he  would  not  manumit  the  slaves 
of  his  wife,  when  at  the  same  time  they  required 
him  to  retain  a  part  of  the  servants  in  perpetual 
slavery.  This,  I  said,  was  an  abandonment  of 
principle ;  and  I  now  add  that  it  shows  that  Mr. 
Harding  was  seized  as  a  victim,  whose  sacrifice 
was  the  only  way  of  reaching  other  and  more  in- 
fluential members  of  the  Conference.  The  counsel 
triumphed  greatly  in  the  assurance  he  gave  you, 
that  this  feature  of  the  report  of  the  committee 
in  Harding's  case  "was  not  adopted  by  Confer- 
ence, but  was  struck  out."  But,  sir,  I  cannot  let 
the  Conference  escape  in  this  way.  I  will  hold 
them  to  their  responsibility  by  the  firm  grasp  of 
documentary  truth.     The  vote  of  the  Conference 


116  Organization  of  the 

on  the  report  of  the  committee  in  Harding's  case, 
did  not  htrike  out  the  clause  leaving  him  in  posses- 
sion of  certain  slaves,  (specified  by  name,)  but 
only  struck  out  the  clause  assigning  the  reason  for 
requiring  him  to  keep  them  in  slavery.  Such  is 
the  fact,  sir,  according  to  the  document,  and  the 
shame  of  the  transaction  will  attach  to  the  Balti- 
more Conference  until  they  reform  their  ways. 
But  the  counsel  is  particularly  liberal  to  us  on  this 
point,  and  equally  fatal  to  his  cause.  He  is  free 
to  tell  us  a  part  of  his  argument,  what  this  reason 
was,  namely,  that  the  laws  of  the  State  did  not 
admit  of  emancipation  after  a  certain  age.  This 
he  says  to  vindicate  his  Conference  from  the  charge 
I  urged,  of  inconsistency  in  holding  the  appellant 
to  so  pious  an  accountability  to  free  himself,  at 
the  peril  of  his  membership,  from  slavery,  and  at 
the  same  time  require  him  to  hold  certain  of  them 
in  perpetual  bondage.  Really,  sir,  it  seems  that 
the  same  evil  genius  which  unquestionably  pre- 
sided over  the  deliberations  of  this  body  of  grave 
divines,  still  holds  uncontrolled  dominion  over  the 
mind  of  the  counsel.  For,  let  me  remind  you,  in 
a  word,  of  the  late  law  of  Maryland,  of  1843, 
which  I  read  the  other  day.  In  this  it  is  specific- 
ally provided  that  the  old  law,  to  which  the  coun- 
sel refers,  be  and  is  hereby  rescinded,  and  here- 
after all,  without  respect  to  age,  shall  be  eligible 
to  emancipation  on  the  same  conditions. 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  117 

4.  But,  sir,  the  counsel  sought  to  involve  me  in 
absurdity.  I  argued  that  slavery  was  not  neces- 
sarily a  sin,  and  that  its  circumstances  are  such 
that  it  is  right  to  tolerate  it,  although  it  be  con- 
nected with  many  evils.  Now,  if  this  position 
iuA^olves  an  absurdity,  the  converse  of  it,  I  sup- 
pose, must  be  true.  That  is,  it  is  wrong  to  toler- 
ate slavery  (being  connected  with  so  many  evils) 
because  it  is  sinful  under  all  circumstances.  And 
whatever  may  be  the  speculative  opinion  of  mem- 
bers of  the  Baltimore  Conference  on  this  point,  I 
can  see  no  reasonable  ground  on  which  they  can 
stand  respected  in  their  own  eyes  for  the  decision 
in  Harding's  case  but  this,  that  his  relation  to  slavery 
ivas  sinful.  Observe,  sir,  he  was  not  located.  This 
would  have  left  him  in  possession  of  orders.  He 
was  not  reproved  merely.  No,  sir,  he  was  suspended 
— that  is,  (in  view  of  the  declaration  that  he  could 
not  make  the  required  pledge,)  expelled  the  minis- 
try— deposed  from  orders.  And  for  what,  sir?  For 
no  heterodoxy  in  doctrine,  nor  viciousness  of  life — 
that  is,  for  no  sin.  Will  they  say  this  ?  Unless 
they  do,  it  follows  that  they  looJced  upon  his  relation 
to  slavery  as  constitiding  him  a  sinner.  And  on  what 
other  hypothesis  can  we  account  for  the  paternity  of 
a  series  of  most  offensive  remarks  which  have  grated 
so  harshly  upon  our  ears,  especially  from  Messrs. 
Collins  and  Griffith  ?  If  Mr.  Harding's  connec- 
tion with   slavery  (just  such  a  connection  as  is 


118  Organization  of  the 

held  by  Southern  men  generally)  be  not  in  a  high 
degree  sinful,  many  remarks  from  these  brethren 
are  without  any  apology  that  I  can  conceive  of. 
Why,  sir,  in  the  select  phraseolog}^  of  these  speak- 
ers, slavery  is  always  "  a  dark  subject ! "  The 
appellant  is  charged  with  haviiig  involved  himself 
in  all  the  difficulties  that  embarrass  and  afflict 
him,  "  by  marrying  ilie  woman  he  did  " — and  why  ? 
Because  she  had  slaves.  And,  sir,  for  this  crime 
he  is  personalli/  charged  on  this  floor  by  word,  ac- 
companied with  a  most  emphatic  gesticulation, 
with  having  violated  his  plighted  faith  to  the  Con- 
ference, and  discarding  "the  godly  admonitions  of 
his  brethren."  Nay,  he  was  asked  where  was  his 
"conscience"  when  he  formed  this  matrimonial 
connection?  Yes,  sir,  so  full  of  turpitude  is  the 
crime  of  marrying  a  lady  with  this  property,  that 
it  must  be  hunted  down,  even  at  the  expense  of 
Mrs.  Harding's  feelings.  It  is  affirmed,  in  allu- 
sion to  her,  that  "no  pious  and  intelligent  woman" 
would  jeopardize  the  standing  (in  the  Baltimore 
Conference)  "of  a  husband  in  whose  judgment 
and  discretion  she  confides,  for  the  consideration 
of  a  few  slaves."  I  really  had  thought  that  if  the 
opinions  of  the  speaker  did  not,  that  his  gallantry, 
in  view  of  these  galleries,  would  save  him  from  so 
far  outraging  the  feelings  of  a  lady.  [Mr.  Collins 
explained,  and  disclaimed  all  intention  to  impugn  the 
piety  or  intelligence  of  Mrs.  Harding — he  did  not 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  119 

douU  either.)  I  believe  you,  sir;  and  it  was  my 
purpose  to  offer,  in  your  behalf,  the  best  apology 
I  could  for  the  freedom  of  expression  you  em- 
ployed in  this  delicate  connection.  Yes,  sir,  there 
is  no  doubt  that  it  was  the  appellant  who  was  to 
suffer  by  this  reference  to  his  lady.  If  the  slaves 
were  not  manumitted,  we  were  to  understand  it 
to  be  wholly  his  fault.  This  is  the  gist  of  the 
matter.  But,  sir,  I  am  not  right  sure,  after  all, 
that  he  should  be  held  to  accountability  in  this  way, 
for  the  disposition  which  his  lady  would  make  of 
property  made  hers — to  be  held  in  her  own  right 
— by  a  special  law  of  the  State.  Indeed,  I  am 
not  certain,  if  what  I  have  learned  of  the  counsel 
be  true,  but  that  his  own  success  in  wooing  the 
consent  of  the  ladies  has  long  since  satisfied  him 
of  the  practical  truth  contained  in  the  couplet : 

If  she  will,  she  will,  you  may  depend  on 't ; 
If  she  won't,  she  luon't,  so  there 's  an  end  on 't. 

There  is  still  another  remark  by  which  the 
speakers  ,  betray  their  affinities.  More  than  one 
has  invoked  this  body  not  to  "  drive  them  to  take 
rank  with  a  slaveholding  Conference !"  Take  rank 
with  a  slaveholding  Conference  1 1  My  dear  sir,  who 
are  you,  and  what  is  your  Conference,  that  you 
should  deprecate  a  footing  with  your  brethren  of 
other  Conferences  ?  What  elevation  is  this  you 
have  reached,  that  you  must  needs  stoop  to  be  on 


120  Organization  of  the 

a  footing  with  Virginia,  and  the  Conferences  south 
of  you  ?  You  '•  take  rank  "  with  Virginia !  Sir, 
I  was  not  an  indifferent  observer  of  the  kindred 
emotions  which  this  pure  abolition  appeal  awaked 
in  certain  quarters  of  this  house.  And  however 
agreeable  the  response  elicited  by  these  remarks 
may  be  to  the  cherished  affinities  of  the  speakers, 
they  may  know  that  they  aroused  feelings  of  the 
deepest  regret  and  mortification  in  other  quarters. 
Sir,  they  cut  harshly  across  the  sensibilities  of 
many  a  heart  here,  and  must  continue  to  jar  in 
harsh  discord  amid  the  sweetest  music  of  our  long- 
cherished  relations.  It  was  not  without  cause,  sir, 
that  the  counsel  closed  his  remarks  by  asking  for- 
giveness. True,  we  have  much  cause  to  complain. 
Yet  I  will  venture  to  pledge  him  the  forgiveness 
of  every  Southern  man  on  this  floor.  I  will  cher- 
ish the  hope  that  stress  of  circumstances,  in  de- 
fending a  hopeless  cause,  has  betrayed  him  to  the 
use  of  so  many  offensive  remarks.  But  you  (ad- 
dressing Mr.  C.)  must  allow  me  to  remind  you, 
and  those  whose  views  you  represent,  that  you 
are  no  "  conservatives."  You  wisely  choose  a 
more  expressive  figure  when  you  represent  your 
body  as  the  "breakwater"  of  the  Conferences. 
And  verily  the  "breakwater"  ye  are!  for  in  your 
branch  of  the  common  stream  it  seems  has  accu- 
mulated the  drift-wood  and  sawyers,  so  to  speak, 
which  have  floated  upon  the  bosom  of  Methodism, 


M.  K  Church,  South.  121 

from  the  upper  and  nether  sources  of  abolition, 
until  the  dam  of  error  has  stretched  itself  across 
your  tide,  and  backed  up  your  waters,  until  they 
have  drowned,  instead  of  fertilized,  your  lands. 

5.  I  proceed  to  notice  the  remarks  of  Brother 
Slicer.  As  he  did  not  design  to  enter  into  the 
merits  of  the  subject,  I  felt  indifferent.  I  was, 
however,  soon  roused  by  the  announcement  that 
he  would  disclose  a  transaction  disreputable  to 
the  Virginia  Conference.  (He  replied,  Not  so — I 
said  discreditable.)  Well,  "discreditable."  (No — 
I  said  a  transaction  not  so  creditable  to  Virginia.) 
Well,  "  not  so  creditable  to  Virginia,"  in  the  West- 
moreland case.  Sir,  the  announcement,  I  say, 
aroused  me.  I  listened!  heard  the  explosion — 
watched  the  slow  progress  of  the  spent  ball — the 
sluggish  missile  fell  far  below  its  mark  !  He  says 
he  is  not  such  a  conservative  as  I  am.  Right  glad 
am  I  of  it.  I  may  safely  turn  him  over  to  our 
faithful  reporter.  He  will  do  him  justice,  I  have 
no  doubt. 

6.  In  concluding  these  preliminary  remarks,  I 
will  notice  one  statement  of  Brother  Griffith.  He 
reminds  us  that  a  large  part  of  the  territory  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference  is  in  Virginia,  west  of  the 
mountains.  But  few  slaves,  comparatively,  are  in 
this  section  of  the  State.  This  he  attributes  to 
the  steady  opposition  of  his  Conference  to  slavery. 
This  might  be  argued,  sir,  if  they  had  found  in 

6 


122  Organization  of  the 

that  section  of  the  work  a  large  slave  population 
which  had  been  gradually  diminishing.  But  the 
reverse  of  this  is  precisely  true.  They  found 
originally  but  few  slaves,  and  the  number  of  these 
has  increased  greatly  since  that  time.  If  Brother 
Griffith  had  not  been  indebted  to  his  imagination 
for  this  important  fact,  I  might  give  him  the  credit 
of  a  good  argument — bating  always,  however,  his 
earnest  deprecation  of  the  dishonor  which  he  sup- 
poses will  attach  to  his  being  "  driven  to  take 
rank  "  with  brethren  at  least  his  equals  ! 

Having  disposed  of  these  several  points  which 
appeared  to  me  as  preliminary  merely,  I  now  ask 
your  indulgence,  sir,  for  a  short  time,  while  I  set 
before  you  the  merits  of  this  case  as  I  find  it  in 
the  journals  of  the  Baltimore  Conference. 

To  present  it  more  clearly,  I  will  read  the  record 
from  the  journal : 

"Whereas,  F.  A.  Harding,  a  member  of  the 
Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  by  his  late  marriage 
with  Miss  Swan,  of  St.  Mary's  county,  Md.,  has 
come  in  possession  of  several  slaves,  viz.,  one 
named  Harry,  aged  52 ;  one  woman,  named  Maria, 
aged  56  ;  one  man,  named  John,  aged  22 ;  a  girl, 
aged  13,  named  Hannah;  and  a  child,  named  Mar- 
garet, aged  2  years;  and  whereas,  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  according  to  its  well-hioivn  usage,  cannot, 
and  WILL  NOT,  tolerate  slaver g  in  ang  of  its  members; 
therefore, 


M,  E,  Church,  South,  123 

^'Resolved,  That  Brother  F.  A.  Harding  is  hereby 
required  to  execute,  and  cause  to  be  recorded,  a 
deed  securing  the  manumission  of  the  slaves  here- 
inafter mentioned :  the  man  named  John,  at  the 
age  of  28  years ;  the  two  female  children,  at  the 
age  of  23  ;  the  issue  of  the  females,  if  any,  to  be 
free  at  the  same  time  with  their  mothers.  And 
that  Brother  Harding  be  farther  required  to  give 
to  this  Conference,  during  its  present  session,  a 
PLEDGE  that  the  said  manumission  shall  he  effected 
during  the  present  Conference-?/ ear T 

This  is  the  report  as  adopted  by  the  Conference. 
It  should  be  noted  that  it  does  provide  for  the 
manumission  of  only  a  part  of  the  slaves.  The 
original  report  of  the  committee  contained  a  clause 
assigning  the  reason  simply  for  not  requiring  the 
manumission  of  all.  This  clause  was  struck  out 
by  a  vote  of  the  Conference. 

The  final  decision  in  this  case,  after  adopting  the 
above  report,  w^as,  on  motion  of  Messrs.  Collins 
and  Emory,  in  the  following  language  :  '^Resolved, 
That  Brother  Harding  be  suspended  until  the  next 
Annual  Conference,  or  until  he  assures  the  Episco- 
pacy that  he  has  taken  the  necessary  steps  to  se- 
cure the  freedom  of  his  slaves." 

The  informality  of  this  w^hole  proceeding  must  be 
obvious  to  every  one  on  the  reading  of  the  record. 
I  will  throw  it  into  something  like  a  legal  form,  such 
as  it  should  have  assumed  before  the  Conference. 


124  Organkation  of  the 

1.  The  indictment.  F.  A.  Harding  is  charged 
with  having  violated  the  well-known  usage  and  de- 
termined purpose  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Confer- 
ence, not  to  tolerate  slavery  in  any  of  its  mem- 
bers. 

2.  Specification.  He  married  Miss  Swan,  who 
was  the  owner  of  five  slaves. 

3.  The  verdict.  That  he  execute,  and  cause  to 
be  recorded,  a  deed,  securing  the  manumission  of 
three  out  of  five  of  the  slaves,  and  that  he  give  a 
pledge  that  this  shall  be  effected  during  the  pres- 
ent Conference-year. 

4.  Penalty.  That  he  be  suspended  until  the 
above  conditions  are  submitted  to — that  is,  deposed 
from  the  order  of  the  ministry. 

Now,  sir,  I  deny  the  legality  of  the  indictment 
— the  iustice  of  the  verdict — and  ask  that  the 
appellant  be  released  from  the  operation  of  the 
penalty. 

The  indictment,  I  say,  is  illegal.  He  is  charged 
with  having  violated  the  "  well-known  usage  and 
determined  purpose  of  the  Baltimore  Conference." 
Under  what  rule  of  our  Discipline,  sir,  I  would  in- 
quire, could  an  Annual  Conference  arraign  and  try 
a  member  for  violating  a  usage  or  purpose  of  its 
body?  The  Discipline  of  the  Church  is  the  com- 
mon charter  under  which  any  and  every  Methodist 
preacher  holds  his  membership  in  an  Annual  Con- 
ference.    It  never  before  entered  my  mind,  sir, 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  '     125 

that  two  opinions  could  exist  among  sane  and 
sober-minded  men  on  this  point.  The  duties  of 
an  Annual  Conference  are  so  clearly  defined  in  a 
series  of  plain  questions  at  page  23  of  the  Disci- 
pline, and  a  few  other  separate  rules  in  different 
parts  of  the  book,  that  its  powers  cannot  be  a 
matter  of  doubt.  They  are  executive  only.  The 
power  to  make  "  rules  and  regulations  "  for  the 
government  of  the  Church  is  ceded  in  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Church  to  the  General  Conference 
only.  This  body  has  defined  in  the  rules  of  Dis- 
cipline the  conditions  of  membership  in  an  Annual 
Conference ;  and  under  this  charter,  and  this  alone, 
membership  is  held  in  these  bodies.  What  rule  of 
Methodist  Discipline  is  he  charged  with  violating  ? 
None,  sir,  none.  The  committee  who  brought  in 
the  indictment  charges  him  in  plain  terms  with 
having  acted  contrary  to  the  "usage  and  deter- 
mined purpose"  of  the  Conference.  For  this,  and 
this  alone,  he  was  tried — convicted  upon  his  own 
testimony — condemned  and  dishonored  !  The  in- 
dictment does  not  even  specify  the  enactment  of 
the  Conference  to  w^hich  it  makes  direct  refer- 
ence. Did  ever  a  more  lawless  procedure  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  this  body?  The  counsel,  sir, 
seems  to  have  entirely  overlooked  this  fact,  by 
which  his  cause  is  most  fatally  embarrassed — 
unless  the  paternity  of  abolition  feeling  pervading 
this  body  should  shield  it  from  the  condemnation 


126  Organization  of  the 

it  deserves.  He  is  bold  to  set  forth  in  his  argu- 
ment, as  the  charge  against  Mr.  Harding,  "that  he 
hiew,  tuhat  ought  to  have  been  tvith  him  of  jjreemi- 
nent  importance^  the  law  of  the  Baltimore  Confer- 
ence." What  laW;  sir  ?  The  imperfect  and  informal 
indictment  does  not  tell  us.  But  the  counsel  is  free 
to  supply  the  deficiency.  He  tells  us,  a  law  to 
which  the  case  of  a  Brother  Hansberger  gave  rise; 
by  which  they  forbid  any  of  their  members  to  hold 
slaves  under  any  circumstances^  and  declared  that 
any  who  might  disregard  the  decision,  "should  be 
deemed  guilty  of  contumacy T  Here,  then,  is  the 
law  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  under  which  he 
was  informally  indicted.  Is  this  a  legal  indict- 
ment ?  This  question  involves  another.  Had  this 
Conference  a  right  to  make  a  term  of  membership 
on  the  subject  of  slavery?  Did  Mr.  Harding,  or 
any  other  member,  hold  his  membership  under  this 
legislation,  or  under  the  rules  of  Discipline?  There 
surely  can  be  no  room  for  difference  of  opinion  here. 
The  Conference  had  no  such  legislative  powers,  and 
all  attempts  to  suspend  the  membership  of  Mr. 
Harding  upon  conditions  defined  by  their  legisla- 
tion, is  wholly  illegal.  So  confident  am  I  of  the 
correctness  of  this  position,  that  at  a  proper  time 
I  may  safely  appeal  to  the  bench  of  Bishops — 
some  one  or  more  of  whom  presided  in  this  Con- 
ference— for  the  authority  by  which  this  was  done. 
The  matter  involves  higher  responsibilities  than 


Jf.  E.  Church,  South.  127 

that  of  the  mere  Conference.  Why  was  it  that 
an  accredited  member  of  this  Conference  was  put 
upon  his  trial  under  an  indictment  framed  upon  the 
legislation  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  ?  (Bishop 
Morris  replied  it  was  not  so — he  was  tried  for  a 
breach  of  the  Methodist  Discipline.)  Sir.  you 
must  stand  corrected  on  this  point.  The  docu- 
ment— the  written  indictment — is  proof  to  the 
contrary.  The  argum^ent  of  counsel  on  this  floor 
makes  him  directly  responsible  for  a  breach  of  the 
''km  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,''  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  not  ignorant  of,  but  knew  the  law,  its 
purpose,  and  design.  The  reply  of  the  Bishop 
(for  which  I  thank  him)  is  a  full  concession  that 
to  try  him  for  his  membership,  under  any  law  of 
the  Conference,  was  a  wholly  illegal  proceeding. 
The  indictment  itself  is  the  proof  that  he  was  so 
tried,  and  its  illegality  all  must  admit.  Our  Bish- 
ops are  sent  to  preside  in  the  Annual  Conferences, 
for  the  specific  purpose  of  preserving  a  unity  in 
the  administration  by  keeping  them  within  the 
limits  defined  in  the  charter.  I  repeat,  therefore, 
that  at  the  proper  time  I  may  request  the  reason 
of  this  oversight.  If,  then,  the  indictment  be  ille- 
gal, the  verdict  and  penalty  which  arose  upon  it 
are  each  illegal ;  the  whole  transaction  is  illegal, 
and  a  reproach  to  the  Conference,  and  should  be 
set  aside  as  null  and  void. 

The  verdict,  I  say,  is  unjust,  as  well  as  illegal. 


128  Organization  of  the 

He  was  convicted,  the  Bishop  tells  us,  and  so  the 
counsel  argued  also,  for  a  breach  of  the  Methodist 
Discipline.  Allow,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
this  was  so ;  it  is  still  true  that  he  was  not  in- 
dicted— he  was  not  charged  with  this  offense. 
And  can  it  be  just  to  indict  a  man  for  one  offense, 
and  try  him  for  another?  Or  what  amounts  to 
the  same,  render  a  verdict  against  him  for  being 
guilty  of  another !  And  will  this  body  sanction 
a  proceeding  so  contrary  to  all  the  forms  of  law, 
and  so  utterly  subversive  of  all  the  principles  of 
justice  ?  I  trust  not.  I  can  hardly  persuade  my- 
self that  the  most  rabid  and  fanatical  feeling  on 
the  subject  of  slavery  which  can  be  supposed  to 
exist  in  any  part  of  this  house,  could  betray  you 
into  a  decision  so  violative  of  all  the  principles  of 
right  reason.  But  it  is  assumed  in  the  argument 
of  the  counsel  that  the  legislation  of  the  Balti- 
more Conference  in  the  case  is  in  conformity  with 
the  rules  of  Discipline  on  the  subject  of  slavery. 
Allow  this  to  be  so,  it  does  not  help  the  cause  of 
the  Conference ;  for  it  would  only  be  a  conviction 
of  a  breach  of  Methodistic  rules  h?/  induction 
merely.  No  one,  I  presume,  should  contend  for 
the  legality  or  justice  of  an  act  depriving  him  of 
his  ministerial  office,  held  under  the  rules  of  Dis- 
cipline, when  he  was  only  convicted  of  a  violation 
of  these  rules  by  induction.  And,  sir,  we  deny  all 
right  to  an  Annual  Conference  to  pass  resolutions 


3L  E,  Church,  South.  129 

interpreting  the  rules  of  the  Disciplme,  and  then 
trying  their  members  under  such  resolutions,  as 
the  statutes  of  the  Church.  Such  powers  in  an 
Annual  Conference  would  entirely  supersede  the 
General  Conference. 

Again,  we  do  not  allow  that  the  "  law  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference,"  in  this  case,  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Discipline  of  the  Church  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery.  We  do  not,  therefore,  allow  that 
the  appellant  was  judly  convicted  of  a  breach  of 
Methodist  rule  by  induction  even.  I  need  not  go 
over  the  ground  occupied  on  this  point  in  my  first 
speech.  I  will  only  meet  the  issues  raised  by  the 
argument  of  counsel.  First,  he  maintains,  on  be- 
half of  the  Conference,  that  the  rule  in  relation 
to  traveling  preachers  holding  slaves  requires  an 
unconditional  manumission,  without  regard  to  the 
fact  whether  or  not  the  slave  be  permitted  to  enjoy 
his  freedom  under  the  laws  of  the  State.  He  ar- 
gues a  distinction  in  the  rules  as  to  apply  to  mem- 
bers or  to  local  preachers,  and  to  traveling  preach- 
ers. Sir,  I  propose  to  meet  his  argument  fairly 
and  squarely.  He  maintains  that  the  rule,  stand- 
ing as  the  second  answer  to  the  questions  on 
slavery,  page  196,  requires  the  traveling  preacher 
to  manumit  his  slaves,  whether  the  laws  permit 
them  to  enjoy  freedom  within  the  State  or  not. 
(If  I  do  not  state  him  correctly,  let  him  put  mo 
right.)  Now,  sir,  let  it  be  regarded  that  the  fwst 
6* 


130  Organization  of  the 

answer  in  this  section  of  Discipline,  in  which  there 
is  no  ambiguity  of  language,  settles  the  entire 
question  of  eligibility  to  office  in  the  Church,  so 
far  as  slavery  is  concerned — eligibility  to  any  order 
in  the  ministry,  to  any  office  in  the  Church.  The 
rule  in  regard  to  traveling  preachers  was  passed 
in  1800.  This,  which  covers  the  whole  ground  of 
eligibility,  was  adopted  in  1816.  It  may,  there- 
fore, be  taken  as  a  fair  exponent  of  the  point  in 
the  former,  which  is  supposed  to  be  doubtful. 
Again,  sir,  the  counsel  overlooks  the  fact,  in  criti- 
cising this  pointy  that  the  traveling  ^^reacher  is 
only  required  to  execute  a  "deed  of  emancipa- 
tion" in  this  specified  condition,  "if  it  be  practica- 
ble." Now  surely,  sir,  it  was  not  the  design  to 
require  the  mere  execution  of  a  deed !  This,  at 
all  times,  is  practicable.  The  meaning  of  the  rule 
is  plainly  this :  it  requires  a  traveling  preacher  to 
secure  the  actual  freedom  of  his  slaves,  "conform- 
ably to  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives,'' 
"if  it  be  practicable" — that  is,  if  the  laws  will 
permit  them  to  enjoy  liberty. 

But  it  is  farther  argued,  that  Harding's  case  is 
not  covered  by  the  rule  of  Discipline,  because  the 
laws  of  Maryland  do  'permit  the  liberated  slave  to 
enjoy  his  freedom.  I  will  not  go  over  this  point, 
which  has  been  set  before  the  Conference  in  the 
most  satisfactory  manner  by  reading  the  laws  of 
the  State,  accompanied  by  the  opinions  of  two 


M,  E,  Church,  South,  131 

gentlemen  of  great  legal  distinction  in  the  State 
of  Maryland,  showing  beyond  doubt  that  this  posi- 
tion of  the  counsel  in  the  case  is  incorrect.  Again, 
sir,  if  this  were  a  doubtful  point  in  itself,  we  have 
shown  in  opening  this  case,  from  the  express  stat- 
ute of  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  the  highest 
legal  opinion  upon  it,  Judge  Key  and  the  Hon. 
W.  D.  Merrick,  both  of  Maryland,  that  Mr.  Hard- 
ing had  no  interest  in  the  slaves  of  his  wife,  farther 
than  what  related  to  the  proceeds  of  their  labor. 
He  could  not,  tvithout  the  consent  of  his  wife,  execute 
a  legal  deed  of  emancipation,  as  he  was  required 
by  the  Conference  to  do.  I  do  not  know  that  a 
similar  law  exists  in  any  State  in  this  Union.  So 
that  if  the  laws  of  any  State  in  the  Confederacy 
cover  the  case  of  any  member  in  the  Church  who 
has  become  possessed  of  slaves  by  marriage,  the 
case  of  Mr.  Harding  is  protected  by  the  laws  of 
the  State  in  which  he  lives.  Indeed,  sir,  it  ap- 
peared to  me  that  the  counsel  after  all  yielded  this 
question — if  my  ear  correctly  caught  his  meaning. 
He  argued  vehemently  against  the  laws  of  Mary- 
land as  most  iniquitous  in  their  tendency — such 
as  no  man  ought  to  submit  to.  In  this,  sir,  he 
yielded  the  point,  and  I  claim  the  decision  on  be- 
half of  the  appellant.  Surely  this  body  will  not 
give  a  decision  in  the  teeth  of  State  legislation, 
and  also  of  an  article  of  our  religious  faith,  ac- 
knowledging the  authority  of  the  civil  legislature, 


132  Organization  of  the 

and   an   express   statute   in   the   Book  of  Disci- 
pline. 

One  other  point,  sir.  Brother  Collins  allows 
what  w^as  implied  by  the  silence  of  Brother  Tip- 
pett,  that  if  the  appellant  had  been  understood  to 
"  pledge  himself  and  his  wife,  if  the  slaves  should 
consent,  to  send  them  to  Liberia,  or  to  a  free  State, 
this  case  had  never  come  here."  The  record  itself, 
which  has  been  read  before  this  Conference,  shows 
that  he  refused  to  give  the  required  " pledge ".o?^ 
the  ground  that  he  could  not  do  it  consistentli/  tuith 
the  laivs  of  the  State.  (I  quote  from  memory,  the 
journal  not  being  before  me.)  This  fully  warrants 
the  inference  that  he  stood  pledged  to  free  his 
slaves  on  the  terms  provided  by  law — nay,  the 
record  committed  him  to  do  this.  The  law  allows 
of  emancipation,  provided  they  will  leave  the  State. 
The  journal,  therefore,  is  against  the  position  of 
the  counsel;  for  it  is  a  fair  inference  from  the 
record,  that  he  was  ready  to  free  his  slaves,  w^ith 
their  consent  to  leave  the  State.  This  pledge 
necessarily  involved  the  consent  of  his  wife,  w^ho 
held  the  le2:al  title.  The  recollection  of  Brother 
Gere  is  therefore  correct,  and  that  of  the  other 
members  of  the  delegation  is  at  fault.  The  coun- 
sel is  still  farther  at  fault.  He  affirmed,  over  and 
over  again,  that  the  argument  urged  by  me,  from 
the  late  law  of  Maryland,  fixing  the  legal  title  to 
the  slaves  of  Mrs.  Harding,  was  an  after-thought 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  133 

— that  he  never  heard  of  it  before.  This  is  par- 
ticularly unfortunate;  for  he  allows  that  the  legal 
oj)inion  of  the  Hon.  W.  D.  Merrick  was  before  the 
Conference ;  and  in  this  he  specifically  alludes  to 
the  fact  that  the  legal  title  to  the  slaves  was  in 
Mrs.  Harding,  and  not  in  him.  And  yet,  in  the 
face  of  this  clearly-implied  pledge,  and  the  proof 
of  utter  inability  to  effect  the  legal  emancipation 
of  the  slaves  without  their  consent,  so  rabid  were 
they  to  effect  an  abolition  purpose,  that  they  ex- 
pelled him  the  body. 

Then,  sir,  I  maintain  the  appellant  violated  no 
rule  of  Discipline.  He  only  violated  a  law  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference — a  law  which  they  had  no 
right  to  make;  and  which,  being  made,  is  a  plain 
and  palpable  contravention  of  the  existing  rule  of 
Discipline  on  the  subject.  The  indictment,  then, 
is  illegal ;  the  verdict  is  equally  unjust ;  and  the 
penalty,  by  consequence,  unwarranted  and  oppres- 
sive. 

The  23d  Arti-cle  of  our  faith  acknowledges  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  State  in  all  civil  matters. 
The  Conference  act  specifically  subjects  our  rules 
on  slavery  to  be  controlled  by  State  legislation. 
This,  be  it  observed,  is  in  special  conformity  with 
the  article  of  religion  just  alluded  to.  It  has  been 
shown,  from  the  statutes  of  Maryland,  that  the 
legal  title  to  these  slaves  tvas  not  in  Mr.  Harding, 
but  in  his  wife.     It  is  farther  shown,  that  if  the 


134  Organization  of  the 

title  v)as  in  Harding,  that  he  could  not  secure  the 
freedom  of  the  slaves  without  compelling  them  to 
go  to  Liberia,  or  to  a  free  State.  Now,  if  the  de- 
cision of  this  Conference  sustain  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  you  wdll  require  Harding  to  execute 
a  legal  deed,  manumitting  slave  property  which 
does  not  belong  to  him.  You  also  require  him  to 
secure  their  freedom,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of 
the  laws  of  the  State,  (provided  they  tvere  his,) 
which  allows  of  their  freedom  only  w^hen  they 
consent  to  leave  the  St<ate.  In  all  this  will  you 
not  place  yourselves  in  the  most  ridiculous  atti- 
tude before  the  world  ?  Will  you  not  perpetrate 
a  most  w^anton  act  of  injustice  toward  the  appel- 
lant? Will  you  not  adopt  a  measure  the  most 
reckless  of  the  claims  of  humanity  that  can  be 
imagined  ?  For,  if  Mr.  Harding  obeys  your  man- 
date, and  manumits  the  slaves,  without  their  con- 
sent to  leave  the  State,  thef/  ivill  he  forced^  under 
the  operation  of  the  civil  authority,  to  dissolve  the 
ties  which  now  bind  parents  to  children  and  other 
near  relatives.  In  addition  to  this,  you  set  up 
your  authority  in  the  premises  as  sujoi^eme,  in  plain 
and  palpable  violation  of  the  23d  Article  of  relig- 
ion, and  the  rule  of  Discipline  in  conformity  thereto, 
which  binds  you,  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  to  be 
subject  to  the  civil  legislature  on  the  subject  of 
slavery.     Are  you  prepared  for  all  this  ? 

Again,  Mr.  Harding  was  tried  according  to  the 


31.  K  Church,  South.  135 

indictment  brought  in  by  the  committee,  not  for  a 
breach  of  your  Discipline,  but  for  a  A^olation  of  a 
law  of  the  Baltimore  Conference.  If  you  sustain 
the  Conference,  you  acknowledge  the  authority. of 
an  Annual  Conference  to  legislate  laws  or  condi- 
tions of  membership  in  the  body,  in  palpable  vio- 
lation of  the  constitution  and  Discipline  of  the 
Church,  which  assigns  this  authority  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  alone.    Are  you  prepared  for  this? 

And  still  fixrther.  The  law  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  under  which  the  appellant  was  bound, 
is  not  only  unauthorized  by  the  DiscipHne,  but  in 
flat  violation  of  the  compromise  act  of  Discipline. 
If  you  sustain  the  Conference,  you  render  null 
and  A^oid  the  plain  construction  of  the  Discipline 
under  which  hundreds  of  traveling  and  local  min- 
isters now  hold  ofHce  and  orders  in  the  Church. 
Are  you  prepared  for  all  this?  Surely  you  are 
not,  unless  you  are  prepared  to  dissolve  the  bonds 
which  bind  us  together  as  a  confederated  body.  I 
ask,  then,  that  you  sustain  the  appeal,  and  release 
Francis  A.  Harding  from  the  act  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  by  which  he  stands  suspended  from 
the  ministry,  which  he  has  held  with  acceptability 
and  usefulness  for  several  years. 

But  if,  after  all,  you  should  feel  yourselves  still 
in  difficulty  on  any  one  point  of  argument  or 
testimony  out  of  which  the  foregoing  conclusions 
are  made  to  arise,  then  let  it  be  remembered  that 


136  Organization  of  the 

the  reading  of  the  journal  shows  a  manifest  in- 
formality, while  the  face  of  the  indictment  itself 
is  without  all  due  form  of  law  or  usage,  and  well 
calculated  to  embarrass  the  decision.  In  view  of 
this  fact,  the  least  the  appellant  has  a  right  to  ex- 
jDect  is,  that  you  should  return  him  for  a  new  trial. 
With  these  remarks,  sir,  I  submit  the  case. 

On  the  following  day  Dr.  Smith  asked  permis- 
sion to  make  some  farther  observations,  of  a  per- 
sonal character,  in  reference  to  Mr.  Harding. 

Considerable  opposition  was  made  to  this,  on 
the  ground  that  both  parties  had  been  allowed  a 
most  extended  and  patient  hearing,  and  that  it  was 
time  the  debate  Vv^as  closed. 

The  motion  w^as  put,  and  carried. 

Dr.  Smith  said  it  would  be  remembered  that  a 
motion  to  locate  Mr.  Harding  had  been  made  at 
the  Baltimore  Conference;  that  either,  on  sugges- 
tion, it  was  withdrawn,  or,  being  ruled  out,  the 
motion  fell  to  the  ground.  He  believed  the  reason 
of  that  movement  was,  that  the  only  proper 
ground  for  location  is  unacceptability,  which  could 
not  be  alleged  in  this  case.  An  impression,  how- 
ever, in  consequence  of  that  motion,  having  gone 
abroad  prejudicial  to  the  character  of  the  appellant, 
either  as  to  his  prudence,  or  talent,  or  general 
acceptability,  he  (Dr.  S.)  begged  the  Conference 
to  bear  in  mind  that  even  were  such  impressions 
correct,  the  question  before  them  was,  the  legality 


M.  E.   Church,  South.  137 

or  the  illegality  of  his  suspension  on  the  ground 
alleged  in  the  record,  and  that  alone  was  the  ques- 
tion for  their  decision.  At  the  same  time  he  took 
that  opportunity  of  sa^dng,  that  the  impression, 
however  it  might  have  been  circulated,  was  alto- 
gether false. 

Mr.  Collins  said  that  Dr.  Smith  had  mistaken 
the  reason  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  motion  for 
location.  The  true  reason  was,  that  it  was  thought 
that  rule  was  not  the  proper  one  to  be  applied  to 
him,  and  the  rule  under  which  he  had  been  tried 
was  the  proper  one. 

At  the  close  of  these  observations  the  call  for 
the  vote  became  general,  and  Mr.  Early  moved 
that  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  be 
reversed.  The  same  being  seconded,  was  put, 
and  a  call  made  for  the  ayes  and  noes.  The  Sec- 
retary proceeded  to  read  the  names.  Dr.  Olin 
desired  to  be  excused,  on  the  ground  that  he  had 
not  heard  the  journals  read,  and  had  only  heard  a 
portion  of  the  debates.  Sometimes  it  was  a  pleas- 
ant thing  to  avoid  a  responsibility;  but  in  this 
case  he  had  no  disposition  to  shrink  from  respon- 
sibility, and  would  much  rather  have  voted,  but 
he  could  not  do  it  conscientiously. 

The  Conference  excused  him. 

The  Secretary  announced  the  votes  to  be,  noes 
117,  ayes  56;  being  a  majority  against  the  rever- 
sal of  61. 


138  Organization  of  the 

The  President  announced  that  this  vote  affirmed 
the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference.  The 
decision  of  the  chair  was  appealed  against,  but 
was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  111  to  53. 

Dr.  Smith.  I  must. and  do  ask  the  privilege  of 
spreading  my  protest  on  the  pages  of  the  Confer- 
ence journal,  and  I  do  so  because,  to  my  own  per- 
sonal knowledge,  there  are  men  on  the  floor  of  this 
house  who  voted  against  the  resolution  of  Mr. 
Early  because  they  deliberately  and  solemnly 
thought  that  the  matter  ought  to  go  back  to  the 
Baltimore  Conference.  But  by  a  majority  we 
have  been  ruled  out,  and  a  fair  decision  of  this 
Conference  has  not  been  given.  And  I  wish  my 
protest  to  go  forth  to  the  American  Church,  and 
American  people,  to  serve  as  a  beacon-light  to 
warn  the  Church  ascainst  the  movements  of  a  ma- 
jority  who  can  obliterate  justice,  and  trample  on 
the  rights  of  a  minority. 

A  long  conversation  arose  as  to  w^hether  the 
vote  refusing  to  reverse  the  decision  of  the  Balti- 
more Conference  confirmed  that  decision.  A  mul- 
tiplicity of  motions  and  amendments  were  made, 
but  eventually  the  discussion  turned  upon  Dr. 
Smith's  request  to  enter  his  protest.  It  was 
moved  that  he  have  liberty  to  enter  the  same, 
when  Mr.  Wiley  said  they  had  better  wait  and 
see  what  it  was  first,  and  then  they  could  decide 
whether  it  should  be  entered  upon  the  journal  or  not. 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  139 

Dr.  Smith  said  he  trusted  he  knew  too  well 
what  was  due  to  himself  as  a  gentleman,  to  those 
that  acted  with  him,  and  to  the  Conference  gener- 
ally, to  address  them  in  any  other  than  respectful 
terms;  but  if  they  thought  the  paper  would  be 
w^hat  they  would  like,  they  would  find  themselves 
mistaken.  No!  they  would  not  like  that  paper, 
for  it  would  contain  truths  that  would  burn  in 
their  cheeks.  (Cries  of  "order,"  etc.)  I  am  per- 
fectly calm.  I  have  got  the  floor,  and  you  have 
got  the  votes;  and  you  can,  having  the  votes,  put 
me  down.  Time  was  when  such  an  excitement 
w^ould  have  unarmed  me,  and  thrown  me  off  my 
defense ;  but  no  storm  of  excitement  can  now  dis- 
arm me  of  my  self-possession.  You  cannot  drive 
me  from  my  position;  and  you  might  as  well  at- 
tempt to  chain  the  lightnings,  or  confine  the  winds 
in  the  caves  of  Eolus,  as  to  put  me  down  when  I 
have  a  right  to  be  heard.  I  shall  prepare  such  a 
memorial  as  will  fearlessly  and  thoughtfully  ex- 
press the  sentiments  of  myself  and  those  that 
think  with  me;  and  no  consideration  shall  induce 
me  to  speak  with  timidity  or  fear  at  such  a 
crisis. 

Mr.  Early  said  he  hoped  they  would  remem- 
ber that  large  majorities  were  apt  to  be  tyran- 
nical— he  trusted  they  would  keep  calm.  He  was 
quite  so — as  much  as  the  affliction  in  which  that 
vote  had  involved  him,  and  those  around  him, 


140  Organization  of  tJie 

would   allow.      After  some  farther  conversation, 
the  order  of  the  day  was  resumed. 

The  intelligence  of  the  action  of  the  General 
Conference  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding  was  re- 
ceived throughout  the  South  with  feelings  of  sad- 
ness. It  was  regarded  by  the  Church  as  an  in- 
fringement upon  the  Constitution  under  which  the 
two  sections  had  lived  and  labored  together  so  long 
in  harmony. 

The  name  of  Dr.  William  A.  Smith  had  been 
familiar  to  the  Church  for  several  years  previous 
to  1844.  His  commanding  talents,  his  sterling 
integrity,  his  fervent  piety,  his  uncompromising 
devotion  to  principle,  and  his  ardent  love  for 
Methodism,  had  earned  for  him  a  wide-spread  repu- 
tation in  the  Church ;  but  in  his  able  defense  of 
constitutional  Church-government,  as  set  forth  in 
his  speeches  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding,  he  at- 
tracted, as  he  had  never  before  done,  the  attention 
of  both  the  Church  and  the  nation.  In  the  gi- 
gantic strength  of  his  mighty  intellect  he  had 
scarcely  a  peer.  Standing  from  this  period  in  the 
front  ranks  of  the  American  ministry,  he  seemed 
to  live  far  in  advance  of  all  his  contemporaries. 
In  the  family  and  social  circle  he  possessed  the 
simple-heartedness  of  a  child — everywhere  else  a 
giant. 

After  a  long  and  useful  life,  he  entered  into 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  141 

rest.  His  last  illness  found  him  in  the  family  of 
his  friend,  the  Rev.  John  C.  Granbery,  D.D.,  in 
the  city  of  Hichmond,  Virginia,  where,  on  the 
first  day  of  March,  1870,  he  breathed  his  last. 

We  copy  the  following  tribute  to  his  memory 
from  the  Minutes  of  the  Virginia  Conference: 

The  committee  appointed  to  prepare  a  paper 
which  shall  express  the  sentiments  of  this  Con- 
ference in  reaard  to  the  death  of  Hev.  Wm. 
A.  Smith,  D.D.,  report  a  sketch  of  his  life, 
and  the  following  resolutions  in  honor  of  his 
memory : 

On  the  list  of  our  dead  for  the  year  now  closing, 
with  grief  and  veneration  we  place  the  name  of 
William  Andrew  Smith.  We  know  that  his  work 
and  fame  are  not  the  exclusive  property  of  this 
Conference,  but  belong  to  the  whole  M.  E.  Church, 
South,  of  which  he  was  so  eminent  a  minister,  if 
we  should  not  rather  say  to  American  Methodism. 
It  is  also  true  that  his  name  has  appeared  the 
three  past  years  on  the  minutes  not  of  the  Vir- 
ginia, but  of  the  St.  Louis  Conference.  Yet  living, 
he  was  ours;  and  now  that  he  is  dead,  we  claim 
him,  in  a  special  sense.  His  large  heart  embraced 
the  entire  Church,  his  wise  counsels  guarded  and 
fostered  her  general  interests,  his  great  abilities 
shed  luster  upon  her  name;  and  it  is  meet  that 
Bishops  and  Conferences  should  do  him  honor, 


142  Org ankat  1071  of  tJie 

Let  the  West  cherish  his  memory  on  account  of 
his  two  years  of  faithful  pastoral  labor  in  the  city 
of  St.  Louis,  and  of  that  great  and  lasting  work 
to  which  he  devoted  his  extraordinary  powers 
during  the  last  year  of  his  life — the  establishment 
of  Central  University  on  a  deep  and  broad  founda- 
tion, not  less  by  the  awakening  of  a  profounder 
interest  on  the  subject  of  education,  hallowed  by 
religion,  among  the  ministry  and  people,  than  by 
the  collection  of  funds  for  an  endow^ment.  But 
in  the  bounds  of  our  Conference  he  was  born, 
brought  up,  converted ;  of  this  body  he  was  a  mem- 
ber more  than  forty  years;  of  our  history  he  is  a 
large,  essential,  illustrious  part;  to  us  he  gave  his 
love  and  service  from  youth  to  old  age,  and  we 
are  glad  to  acknowdedge  the  debt  of  gratitude  and 
affection  we  owe  him;  among  us  he  died,  and  in 
the  beautiful  cemetery  of  Hollyw^ood  in  Richmond 
his  dust  reposes,  aw^aiting  the  resurrection-morn. 
To  some  of  us  he  was  a  brother  dearly  beloved, 
to  more  of  us  an  honored  father:  if  others  loved 
him,  we  yet  more. 

Wm.  A.  Smith  was  born  in  Fredericksburg,  Va., 
Nov.  29,  1802.  His  mother  w^as  a  consistent 
member  of  the  Methodist  Church,  and  in  death 
prayed  that  her  son  might  live  to  preach  the  glo- 
rious gospel.  His  father  was  a  man  of  honorable 
character  and  position.  Both  died  wdien  he  was 
of  a  tender  age.     For  a  time  the  orphan  boy  had 


M.  E:  Church,  South,  143 

rough  usage;  but  he  was  afterward  adopted  and 
brought  up  by  Mr.  Russell  Hill,  a  friend  of  his  fa- 
ther, and  a  worthy  merchant  of  Petersburg.  When 
seventeen  years  old,  he  was  converted,  and  joined 
the  M.  E.  Church.  He  had  received  a  good  Eng- 
lish education,  and  had  commenced  the  study  of 
the  classics ;  but  feeling  that  he  was  called  of  God 
to  the  ministry,  and  not  being  able  to  attend  col- 
lege as  he  desired,  he  studied  privately  one  year 
at  the  house  of  his  uncle,  Mr.  Porter,  in  Orange 
county,  and  taught  school  two  or  three  years  in 
Madison.  In  1824  he  traveled  the  Gloucester 
Circuit  under  the  Presiding  Elder;  in  February, 
1825,  he  was  admitted  on  trial  into  the  Virginia 
Conference.  In  1833,  while  agent  for  Randolph 
Macon  College,  then  in  its  infancy,  he  met  with  a 
fearful  accident :  the  carriage  W'hich  he  was  driving 
upset  and  fell  on  him,  breaking  his  right  thigh  and 
dislocating  his  left  hip,  and  badly  laming  him  for 
life.  He  w^as  a  delegate  to  the  General  Confer- 
once  of  the  M.  E.  Church  every  session  from  1832 
to  1844,  and  occupied  a  high  position  in  that  great 
council  as  an  adviser  and  debater.  In  the  memo- 
rable appeal  case  of  Harding,  and  in  the  yet  more 
important  extrajudicial  trial  of  Bishop  Andre w", 
which  led  to  the  division  of  the  Church,  he  w^on  a 
reputation  wide  as  the  United  States,  and  inferior 
to  that  of  no  minister  of  any  denomination,  for 
the  highest  deliberative  and  forensic  eloquence. 


144  Organization  of  the 

He  was  a  member  of  the  Louisville  Convention 
which  organized  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  and 
of  all  the  General  Conferences  of  this  Church  to 
the  date  of  his  death.  He  commanded  universal 
respect  and  confidence  among  his  brethren  by  the 
sincerity  of  his  zeal,  the  wisdom  of  his  counsels, 
and  the  power  of  his  reasoning.  His  impress  will 
Ions;  remain  on  the  le2:islation  and  institutions  of 
Southern  Methodism.  In  1846  he  was  called 
from  the  regular  pastorate,  by  the  urgency  of  the 
trustees  of  Randolph  Macon  College,  sanctioned 
by  the  Virginia  Conference,  to  the  presidency  of 
this  institution.  He  was  selected  for  that  place 
because  his  courage,  energy,  and  strength  of  intel- 
lect, seemed  indispensable,  not  only  to  the  pros- 
perity, but  even  to  the  saving,  of  this  noble  insti- 
tution. Twenty  years  of  his  life  were  consecrated 
to  this  cause — years  of  self-sacrifice,  of  unremit- 
ting toil,  of  courageous  battling  with  difficulties 
and  victory  over  them;  of  hope  where  others 
desponded,  of  faith  where  others  doubted,  of  reso- 
lution where  others  wavered.  He  was  diligent  in 
his  study,  diligent  in  his  lecture-room,  diligent  in 
travel  through  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  to  col- 
lect money  and  to  arouse  interest  in  behalf  of  the 
College.  The  number  of  students  steadily  in- 
creased, the  standard  of  scholarship  was  elevated, 
and  through  the  joint  efforts  of  Dr.  Smith  and  the 
agents  of  the  College,  an  endowment-fund  of  $100,- 


M.  K  Church  J  South,  145 

000  was  raised.  Then  came  the  terrible  war  Avhich 
emptied  those  classic  halls,  and  swept  away  the 
funds  which  had  been  gathered  with  so  much  toil. 
Yet  not  in  vain  had  he  labored.  Scores  of  ministers, 
hundreds  of  pious  young  men,  educated  under  his 
care,  molded  by  his  influence,  are  this  day  in  their 
several  spheres  carrying  on  the  same  grand  work 
to  which  he  was  devoted,  and  have  learned,  from 
his  teachings  and  example,  never  to  surrender, 
never  to  despair  of  Randolph  Macon. 

We  have  not  spoken  of  Dr.  Smith  as  a  preacher 
and  pastor.  He  soon  rose  to  eminence  in  the 
ministry,  and  stood  Avith  the  foremost  in  the  pul- 
pit and  pastorate  for  faithfulness,  ability,  and 
success.  He  had  a  deep,  distinct,  happy,  constant 
experience  of  the  saving  grace  of  God  in  Christ 
Jesus.  His  zeal  for  the  cause  of  religion  was 
pure,  steady,  consuming.  He  was  fully  conse- 
crated to  the  work  of  the  ministry.  The  doc- 
trines and  polity  of  our  Church  had  no  stronger, 
nobler  expounder  and  champion  than  he.  His 
sermons  were  "logic  on  fire" — grand  and  solid 
discussions  of  the  leading  truths  of  the  gospel, 
animated  with  deep  emotion.  Thousands  were 
converted  under  his  ministry;  many  of  them 
became  preachers  of  the  word,  in  our  own  and 
in  other  denominations;  the  Churches  he  served 
were  ever  edified  and  trained,  not  less  by  his  pas- 
toral fidelity  than  by  his  luminous  discourses. 
7 


146  Organization  of  the 

As  a  man,  he  was  of  marked  character.  Who, 
that  ever  saw  him,  could  forget  that  bold,  frank, 
noble  face  and  forehead,  which  revealed  at  a 
glance  the  lofty  attributes  of  his  intellect,  the 
loftier  attributes  of  his  heart?  Cunning  and  de- 
ceit he  knew  not;  to  fear  he  was  a  stranger;  his 
convictions  he  was  ever  ready  to  avow  and  main- 
tain. Yet,  with  all  his  courage  and  indomitable 
energy  of  will,  he  had  a  tender,  sympathetic  heart, 
and  much  of  a  child -like  spirit,  simple,  unselfish, 
trustful,  easy  to  be  entreated. 

In  the  fall  of  1866  he  was  transferred  to  the 
St.  Louis  Conference.  In  the  summer  of  1869  he 
visited  Virginia  to  build  up  his  shattered  constitu- 
tion. He  suffered  severely  with  chronic  dysen- 
tery, complicated  with  other  disorders,  and  grew 
worse  each  succeeding  month,  until  he  breathed 
his  last  March  1,  1870,  in  the  city  of  Richmond. 
He  retained  the  clearness  of  his  faculties,  and 
delighted  to  speak  of  the  great  themes  of  Chris- 
tianity, especially  that  saying  of  John,  "God  is 
love."  He  told  us  that  from  the  day  he  gave  his 
heart  to  God  in  youth,  that  self-surrender  had 
never  been  recalled,  and  his  trust  in  Christ  had 
never  wavered.  He  compared  his  state  of  mind 
to  a  lake  embosomed  in  a  deep  forest,  whose  peace- 
ful surface  the  rough  winds  could  not  reach. 

We  offer  for  adoption  by  the  Conference  the 
following  resolutions : 


% 


31.  E,  Church,  South.  147 

1.  Resolved,  That  in  the  death  of  R-ev.  Wm. 
A.  Smith,  D.D.,  not  only  has  the  Church  lost  a 
bright  and  shining  light,  but  this  Conference  is 
called  to  mourn  the  loss  of  an  honored  father, 
who  for  many  years  was  to  us  a  strong  tower  of 
defense  and  an  able  leader  in  every  good  enter- 
prise. 

2.  Resolved,  That  we  glorify  God  in  the  exalted 
character,  the  abundant  labors,  the  enduring  fruits 
of  usefulness,  and  the  happy  death  of  Dr.  Smith; 
and  that  we  will  cherish  his  memory,  and  teach 
our  children  to  hold  him  in  honor. 

3.  Resolved,  That  we  convey  to  his  widow  and 
children  the  assurance  of  our  deep  sympathy  in 
their  bereavement,  and  of  our  prayers  that  the 
blessing  of  Providence  and  the  comfort  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  may  be  richly  vouchsafed  to  them  in 
their  hour  of  need. 

4.  Resolved,  That  Rev.  J.  E.  Edwards  and  Asa 
Snyder  be  appointed  a  committee  to  procure  a 
suitable  monument  and  have  it  placed  over  the 
grave  of  Dr.  Smith,  and  that  they  be  authorized 
to  receive  contributions  to  defray  the  expenses  of 
the  same.  Leroy  M.  Lee, 

J.  C.  Granbery, 
D'Arcy  Paul. 


148  Organization  of  the 


CIIAPTEH    II. 

The  influence  of  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  in 
the  case  of  Francis  A.Harding — Resolution  of  Drs.  Capers 
and  Olin — Speeches  of  Drs.  Olin  and  Durbin — Commit- 
tee of  Pacification  appointed  —  Dr.  Durbin's  resolution, 
proposing  a  day  of  fasting,  humiliation,  and  prayer — The 
committee  fail  to  agree  on  any  plan  of  compromise — 
Resolution  of  Mr.  Collins  in  reference  to  Bishop  Andrew 
— Report  of  the  Committee  on  Episcopacy — Bishop  An- 
drew's statement — The  report  of  the  committee  made  the 
special  order  of  the  day  for  the  22d  of  May  —  Great 
interest  felt  —  Alfred  Griffith's  speech — Benjamin  M. 
Drake's  motion  to  amend  the  preamble — Bishop  Soule 
addresses  the  Conference — Speeches  of  Peter  P.  Sandford 
and  Dr.  William  Winans  —  Speeches  of  Elias  Bowen 
and  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce — Speeches  of  Jerome  C.  Berry- 
man,  Seymour  Coleman,  Dr.  Smith,  and  Thomas  String- 
field — Sketch  of  Thomas  Stringfield — Speech  of  Thomas 
Crowder — Sketch  of  Thomas  Crowder — Speech  of  Dr. 
Nathan  Bangs. 

i  The  influence  of  the  action  of  the  General  Con- 
ference in  the  case  of  Francis  A.  Harding  was  felt 
throughout  the  Church.  It  was  not  difficult  for  any 
one  of  ordinary  discernment  to  foresee  that  it  must 
result  in  the  alienation  of  one  section  from  the  otlier. 


M,  E,  Church,  South.  149 

The  South  m  this  case  had  only  demanded  what 
was  pledged  by  the  constitutional  enactments  and 
provisions  of  the  Church.  With  less  than  this, 
they  could  not  and  ought  not  to  have  been  satis- 
fied. But  this  now  being  denied  them  by  a  domi- 
nant majority,  they  could  no  longer  feel  secure  in 
the  rights  and  privileges  wdiich  had  been  guaran- 
teed them  by  the  Discipline.  The  North  at  the 
same  time,  inflated  with  victory,  w^ere  unwilling 
to  yield  any  advantage  they  had  achieved  in  a  con- 
test in  which  some  of  them  had  been  struggling 
for  the  mastery  for  years.  The  General  Confer- 
ence, however,  was  not  without  conservative  men 
who  resided  in  the  North,  and  who  were  anxious 
to  avert  the  catastrophe  Avhich  threatened  not  only 
the  peace,  but  the  continued  unity,  of  the  Church. 
Among  these.  Dr.  Stephen  Olin,  of  the  New  York 
Conference,  and  Dr.  John  P.  Durbin,  of  the 
Philadelphia  Conference,  were  prominent.  Dr. 
Olin  had  spent  several  years  of  his  ministry  in 
the  South  Carolina  Conference,  and  Dr.  Durbin 
was  born  and  reared  in  Kentucky;  and  they  were 
fully  aw^are  that  the  recent  action  of  the  General 
Conference  must  imperil,  if  not  destroy,  Method- 
ism in  the  South,  unless  some  pacific  measures 
should  be  adopted.  In  connection  with  Dr.  Wil- 
liam Capers,  of  the  South  Carolina  Conference, 
Dr.  Olin  signed  the  following  resolution,  which 
was  presented: 


148 


rj 


n 


I    APTKR     II. 

The  iuflin  f 

(  ,       •       1 

Ih- 

1   .                        '.  lUfl   Ml     i 

Bi 

:  DoH.Tr. 

tee  of  V 

!      Dofi 

propoiiiiir* 

'.ioo,  umI  pm, 

c  •   • 

oa  aoT  pUa  of  cacD| 

K. 

<  in  fgHenMca  t 

-  l: 

...;iMoo  Epiico] 

ili 

c'  rrr^nrtof  Umcoi 

fpecial  < 

r  the  22d  or 

interest 

ipneli~Bcii> 

Drakci 

'«  prmmUa—  I'..>b 

sddftaK)- 

oTPcCrr  P 

and  Dr. 

'*-•  of  Uia 

and  Dr. 

<?• — ^|-                 .Icnsra*  1 

roan,  ."^ 

''knuui.  I>r.  Sc:              :    I         i 

field 

Iliomait                                      ..f 

Croir<: 

Natiuu.  . 

The  inl  of  (he  Geno 

fercnco  in  th  A.  II  \t 

throu;:hout  t'  h.    Ii  was  not  • 

one  of  or«iinar\iiscernincnt  to 
result  in  t!  iiofoi 


M,  E.  Churchy  South.  151 

tending  to  say  that  all  the  brethren  in  the  non- 
slaveholding  States  are  abolitionists,  any  more 
than  that  the  others  are  all  slaveholders.  If  in 
this  view  I  am  mistaken,  I  am  unfortunate. 

A  motion  to  lay  the  amendment  on  the  table 
was  made,  and  Dr.  Durbin,  and  almost  at  the  same 
moment  Dr.  Olin  also,  rose.  Dr.  Durbin  offered 
to  give  way,  but  the  chair  said  that  Dr.  Olin  could 
not  speak  to  the  original  motion,  and  Dr.  Durbin 
proceeded.  He  hoped  the  amendment  would  not 
prevail.  He  understood  Dr.  Capers  to  mean  by 
the  North,  non-slaveholding  States,  (Dr.  Capers 
assented,)  so  that  the  chair  could  appoint  either 
from  the  North,  East,  or  West. 

The  motion  to  lay  the  amendment  on  the  table 
was  carried. 

Dr.  Olin  spoke  to  the  original  motion.  He 
spoke  under  the  most  powerful  emotion,  and  in  a 
strain  of  tenderness  that  moved  every  member  of 
the  Conference.  He  said  he  felt,  from  his  relation 
to  the  Conference  as  a  member  for  the  first  time, 
it  became  him  to  explain  why  his  name  was  at- 
tached to  the  resolution.  It  had  been  shown  to 
him  within  five  minutes,  and  he  had  asked  upon 
it  the  advice  of  one  whose  opinion  was  entitled  to 
great  weight.  He  could  not  refuse  to  second  it, 
believing  it  was  offered  in  a  spirit  of  conciliation. 
He  had  feared  for  these  two  or  three  days  that, 
though  possibly  they  might  escape  the  disasters 


152  Organisation  of  the 

that  threatened  them,  it  was  not  probable.  He 
had  seen  the  cloud  gathermg,  so  dark  that  it 
seemed  to  him  there  was  no  hope  left  for  them 
unless  God  should  give  them  hope.  It  might  be 
from  his  relation  to  both  extremities,  that,  infe- 
rior as  might  be  his  means  of  forming  conclusions 
on  other  topics,  he  had  some  advantages  on  this; 
and  from  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  feel- 
ings of  his  brethren  in  the  work,  he  saw  little 
ground  of  encouragement  to  hope.  It  appears  to 
me  (he  continued)  that  we  stand  committed  on 
this  question  by  our  principles  and  views  of  policy, 
and  neither  of  us  dare  move  a  step,  from  our  posi- 
tion. Let  us  keep  away  from  the  controversy 
until  brethren  from  opposite  sides  have  come  to- 
gether. I  confess  I  turn  away  from  it  with  sor- 
row, and  a  deep  feeling  of  apprehension  that  the 
difficulties  that  are  upon  us  now  threaten  to  be 
unmanageable.  I  feel  it  in  my  heart,  and  never 
felt  on  any  subject  as  I  do  on  this.  I  may  take 
it  for  granted  that  we  speak  as  opponents  here. 
I  have  had  no  part  in  this  controversy.  It  has 
pleased  God  that  I  should  be  far  away,  or  laid 
upon  a  bed  of  sickness.  I  have  my  opinions  and 
attachments,  but  I  am  committed  by  no  act  of 
mine  to  either  side;  and  I  will  take  it  on  me  to 
say  freely  that  I  do  not  see  how  Northern  men 
can  yield  their  ground,  or  Southern,  men  give  up 
theirs.     I  do  indeed  believe,  that  if  our  affairs 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  153 

remain  in  their  present  position,  and  this  General 
Conference  do  not  speak  out  clearly  and  distinctly 
on  the  subject,  however  unpalatable  it  may  be,  we 
cannot  go  home  under  this  distracting  question 
without  a  certainty  of  breaking  up  our  Confer- 
ences. I  have  been  to  eight  or  ten  of  the  North- 
ern Conferences,  and  spoken  freely  w^ith  men  of 
every  class,  and  firmly  believe  that,  with  the  few- 
est exceptions,  they  are  influenced  by  the  most 
ardent  and  the  strongest  desire  to  maintain  the 
Discipline  of  our  Church.  Will  the  Southern 
men  believe  me  in  this — when  I  say  I  am  sincere, 
and  well  informed  on  this  subject?  The  men  who 
stand  here  as  abolitionists  are  as  ardently  attached 
to  Methodist  Episcopacy  as  you  all.  I  believe  it 
in  my  heart.  Your  Northern  brethren,  who  seem 
to  you  to  be  arrayed  in  a  hostile  attitude,  have 
suffered  a  great  deal  before  they  have  taken  their 
position,  and  they  come  up  here  distressed  beyond 
measure,  and  disposed,  if  they  believed  they  could, 
without  destruction  and  ruin  to  the  Church,  to 
make  concession.  It  may  be  that  both  parties 
will  consent  to  come  together  and  talk  over  the 
matter  fairly,  and  unbosom  themselves,  and  speak 
all  that  is  in  their  hearts;  and  as  lovers  of  Christ 
keep  out  passion  and  prejudice,  and  with  much 
prayer  call  down  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  their  de- 
liberations, and  feeling  the  dire  necessity  that  op- 
presses both  parties,  they  will  at  least  endeavor 

7* 


154  Organization  of  the 

to  adopt  some  plan  of  pacification^  that  if  they 
may  go  away  it  may  not  be  without  hope  of  meet- 
ing again  as  brethren.  I  look  to  this  measure 
with  desire  rather  than  with  hope.  With  regard 
to  our  Southern  brethren — and  I  hold  that  on  this 
question,  at  least,  I  may  speak  with  some  confi- 
dence— if  they  concede  w^hat  the  Northern  breth- 
ren wish — if  they  concede  that  holding  slaves  is 
incompatible  with  holding  their  ministry — they 
may  as  well  go  to  the  Rocky  Mountains  as  to 
their  own  sunny  plains.  The  people  would  not 
bear  it.  They  feel  shut  up  to  their  principles  on 
this  point.  They  love  the  cause,  and  would  serve 
God  in  their  work.  I  believe  there  is  not  a  man 
among  them  that  would  not  make  every  sacrifice, 
and  even  die,  if  thereby  he  could  heal  the  division. 
But  if  our  difficulties  are  unmanageable,  let  our 
spirit  be  right.  If  we  must  part,  let  us  meet  and 
pour  out  our  tears  together;  and  let  us  not  give 
up  until  we  have  tried.  I  came  into  this  Confer- 
ence yesterday  morning  to  offer  another  resolution. 
It  was  that  we  should  suspend,  now  that  the  Sab- 
bath had  intervened,  and  shed  its  calmness  and 
quiet  over  our  agitated  spirits,  that  we  should  sus- 
pend our  duties  for  one  day,  and  devote  it  to  fast- 
ing and  prayer  that  God  may  help  us,  so  that,  if 
we  have  not  union,  we  may  have  peace.  This 
resolution  partakes  of  the  same  spirit.  I  cannot 
speak  on  this  subject  without  deep  emotion.     If 


i!f.  E.  Church,  South.  155 

we  push  our  principles  so  fiir  as  to  break  up  the 
Connection,  this  may  be  the  last  time  we  meet. 
I  fear  it !  I  fear  it !  I  see  no  way  of  escape. 
If  we  find  any,  it  will  be  in  mutual  moderation,  in 
calling  for  help  from  the  God  of  our  fathers,  and 
in  looking  upon  each  other  as  we  were  wont  to  do. 
These  are  the  general  objects  I  had  in  view  in 
seconding  the  resolution,  as  they  are  of  him  who 
moved  it. 

The  reverend  gentleman  sat  dow^n  amid  the 
most  deep  and  hallowed  excitement,  and  the  re- 
sponsive prayers  of  the  whole  Conference. 

At  the  close  of  Dr.  Olin's  speech.  Dr.  Durbin 
addressed  the  Conference.  He  had  but  a  word 
to  say.  He  could  never  forget  the  scene  before 
him  that  morning.  Dr.  Olin  had  said  that  he 
scarcely  indulged  the  hope,  though  he  felt  a  strong 
desire,  that  the  measure  proposed  would  be  suc- 
cessful. For  himself,  he  thought  he  could  discern 
light,  notwithstanding  the  darkness  that  hung 
around  the  question  -,  and  he  felt  not  only  a  desire, 
but  a  strong  hope,  that  they  should  yet  be  deliv- 
ered from  the  dangers  which  impended  over  their 
heads.  Yes,  he  clung  to  the  hope  of  the  contin- 
ued unity  of  the  Church.  Abraham,  in  great  dif- 
ficulties, believed  in  hope  against  hope,  and  yet 
most  gloriously  realized  his  hope,  and  became  the 
father  of  many  nations.  He  said  he  saw  ground 
for  this  hope  in  the  tenderness  of  spirit  which  had 


156  Organization  of  the 

been  manifested  so  generally  since  the  introduction 
of  the  resolution ;  and  he  felt  now,  as  he  had  felt 
since  his  arrival  in  the  city,  the  most  confident  as- 
surance that  brethren  of  all  parties  would  sacrifice 
every  thing  but  their  ulterior  principles,  for  the 
continued  unity  of  the  Church.  Dr.  Olin  had  told 
them  very  justly,  that  if  they  said  slavery,  under 
all  circumstances,  is  incompatible  with  the  functions 
of  the  gospel  ministry,  they  put  their  brethren  in 
the  South  in  a  position  which  must  destroy  .all 
hopes  of  usefulness  on  their  part  in  the  Church. 
Sir,  (continued  Dr.  D.,)  we  have  not  said  this ;  we 
cannot  say  it ;  the  committee  will  not  say  it.  I 
do  not  believe  our  gallant  vessel  is  yet  to  be  un- 
loosed from  her  moorings.  She  was  exposed  to  a 
dangerous  rock  in  the  South,  and  an  equally  dan- 
gerous one  in  the  North.  There  is  an  open  sea 
between  them.  The  brethren  of  the  North  will 
not  drive  us  upon  the  rock  in  the  South,  if  the 
brethren  in  the  South  will  not  drive  us  upon  the 
rock  in  the  North.  If  the  committee  address  them- 
selves to  the  difficulties  in  the  spirit  which  now 
pervades  the  Conference,  we  shall  yet  see  brighter 
and  better  days.  The  two  days,  during  which 
the  committee  will  have  this  subject  under  consid- 
eration, will  be  an  era  in  the  history  of  Method- 
ism, and  I  think  that  one  of  them  at  least  should 
be  observed  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer.  The 
Wesley  an  Conference  in  England,  after  the  death 


M,  E.  CJmrch,  South.  157 

of  Mr.  Wesley,  was  on  the  brink,  apparently,  of 
dissolution,  and  yet  the  wise  counsel  of  a  few 
brethren,  and  the  compromising  spirit  of  the  gen- 
eral body,  devised  a  plan  of  permanent  pacifica- 
tion. I  would  say,  then,  let  every  heart  and 
tongue  be  quiet  during  these  momentous  two  days. 
It  is  almost  in  my  heart  to  say,  Cursed  be  he  that 
shall  speak  a  word  to  inflame  or  exasperate  any 
one,  while  this  subject  is  in  the  hands  of  the  com- 
mittee. 

In  the  discussion  of  this  resolution,  in  addition 
to  the  gentlemen  already  named,  Mr.  Drake,  of 
the  Mississippi,  Mr.  Crandall,  of  the  New  England, 
Mr.  Early  and  Dr.  Smith,  of  the  Virginia,  and 
Mr.  Dow,  of  the  New  York  Conference,  took  part. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  Collins,  the  resolution  was 
unanimously  adopted,  after  changing  the  verbiage, 
substituting  the  words  "a  committee  of  six,"  for 
"  a  committee  of  three  from  the  South  and  three 
from  the  North."  Dr.  Capers,  of  South  Carolina, 
Dr.  Winans,  of  Mississippi,  and  Mr.  Early,  of  Vir- 
ginia, represented  the  South  in  the  committee; 
while  the  North  was  represented  by  Dr.  Olin,  of 
New  York,  Mr.  Crandall,  of  New  England,  and 
Mr.  Hamline,  of  Ohio. 

On  the  same  day  Dr.  Durbin  offered  the  follow- 
ing resolution,  which  was  adopted  : 

"Resolved,  That  to-morrow  be  observed  by  this 
Conference  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  humiliation  be- 


% 


158  Organization  of  the  .., 

fore  God,  and  prayer  for  his  blessing  upon  the 
committee  of  six,  in  conjunction  with  the  Bishops, 
on  the  present  difficulties;  and  that  the  hour  from 
twelve  to  one  o'clock  be  devoted  to  religious  serv- 
ices in  the  Conference." 

In  the  discussion  of  the  resolution  offered  by 
Drs.  Capers  and  Olin,  the  possibility  of  the  divis- . 
sion  of  the  Church  was  referred  to  by  speakers  on 
both  sides  of  the  line.  It  was  very  evident,  even 
to  a  casual  observer,  that  the  continued  unity  of 
the  Church  was  scarcely  to  be  hoped  for. 

On  the  15th  of  May,  "a  few  minutes  before 
twelve  o'clock.  Bishop  Soule  was  invited  into  the 
chair  by  Bishop  Andrew,  to  conduct  the  prayer- 
meeting  which  the  Conference"  had  appointed  the 
day  "  before  under  the  resolution  offered  by  Dr. 
Durbin."  "  Bishop  Soule  gave  out  two  hymns,  and 
at  his  request.  Brothers  Richey  and  Early,  and 
Brothers  CrandaU  and  Winans,  led  the  devotions 
of  the  Conference.  After  these  exercises.  Bishop 
Hedding  was  called  into  the  chair,  gave  out  another 
hymn,  and  invited  Brothers  Capers  and  Fillmore 
to  lead  in  prayer." 

The  committee  of  six  were  expected  to  report 
on  the  16th  of  May.  Instead  of  presenting  their 
report.  Bishop  Soule  asked,  in  their  behalf,  for 
longer  time  for  consideration.  Unable  to  agree 
on  any  plan  of  compromise,  by  which  the  two 
sections  could   be  reconciled,  on  the   18th   they 


M.  E.  Church,  jSoiUL  159 

communicated  this  intelligence  to  the  Confer- 
ence. 

All  efforts  at  compromise  thus  far  had  failed. 
Neither  the  resolution  offered  by  Drs.  Capers  and 
Olin,  asking  for  the  committee  of  six,  nor  yet  the 
one  offered  by  Dr.  Durbin,  had  effected  any  settle- 
ment of  the  points  in  controversy. 

When  Dr.  Smith  said,  "  The  South  does  not  de- 
sire disunion — come  when  it  may,  it  shall  be  forced 
upon  us,"  he  expressed  the  sentiment  of  not  only 
the  delegates  in  the  General  Conference  from  the 
Southern  States,  but  also  of  the  entire  laity  whom 
they  represented.  The  South  did  not  desire  di- 
vision— yet  to  avert  it  seemed  impossible.  Nor  do 
we  think  that  the  North  wished  the  division  of  the 
Church,  abstractly  considered ;  but,  feehng  an  op- 
position to  slavery,  they  resolved  to  carry  their 
point,  though  in  violation  of  a  solemn  compact 
which  had  been  entered  into,  and  under  which  the 
Church  had  flourished,  even  if  in  so  doing  they 
would  drive  the  last  vestige  of  Methodism  from 
the  South. 

Frequent  efforts  have  been  made  to  impress 
the  public  mind  with  the  conviction  that  the 
connection  with  slavery,  by  marriage,  of  the  Rev. 
James  0.  Andrew,  D.D.,  one  of  the  Bishops 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  had  led 
to  the  division  of  the  Church,  and  no  pains  have 
been  spared  to  devolve  on  this  distinguished  mia- 


160  Organization  of  the 

ister  of  the  gospel  the  responsibility  of  the  sep- 
aration. 

It  will  be  seen,  however,  that  up  to  this  period 
the  name  of  Bishop  Andrew,  as  connected  with 
slavery,  had  not  been  referred  to  in  the  official 
proceedings  of  the  General  Conference.  The  sub- 
ject had  been  brought  before  the  Conference  in 
the  shape  of  memorials  and  petitions,  and  in  the 
appeal  of  Mr.  Harding.  The  excitement,  too,  was 
already  intense.  The  clouds  of  disunion  were 
rolling  up  from  the  horizon  of  the  Church  in  every 
direction,  previous  to  the  arrest  of  the  official 
character  of  Bishop  Andrew.  Unwilling  as  the 
Southern  delegates  were  to  entertain  the  idea  of 
the  division  of  the  Church,  they  were,  neverthe- 
less, forced  to  apprehend  such  a  result. 

Bishop  Andrew,  however,  had  become  connected 
with  slavery  several  years  previous  to  this  Gen- 
eral Conference,  without  his  -consent.  A  lady  of 
Augusta,  Georgia,  had  bequeathed  to  him  a  mu- 
latto girl,  in  trust  until  she  should  be  nineteen 
years  of  age;  the  will  provided  that  he  should 
then  send  her  to  Liberia,  if  she  was  willing  to  go. 
If,  however,  she  would  not  consent,  then  he  should 
retain  her  and  make  her  as  free  as  the  laws  of 
Georgia  would  admit.  When  the  time  arrived, 
she  refused  to  go  to  Liberia,  and  was  consequently 
legally  the  slave  of  Bishop  Andrew.  She  contin- 
ued to  reside  in  her  own  house,  on  a  lot  owned  by 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  161 

the  Bishop — he  deriving  no  pecuniary  benefit  from 
her  services — and  having  the  privilege  of  going  to 
Liberia  at  any  time.  She,  however,  steadily  re- 
fused to  leave  the  State  of  Georgia,  and  as  the 
laws  of  that  State  would  not  permit  her  emancipa- 
tion, nor  admit  to  record  any  deed  of  emancipa- 
tion. Bishop  Andrew  was  legally  her  master. 

Bishop  Andrew  had  also  inherited,  by  the  death 
of  his  former  wife,  a  colored  boy,  whom  he  could 
not  liberate  in  the  State  of  Georgia,  but  whom  he 
proposed  to  set  free  as  soon  as  he  was  prepared  to 
earn  his  own  living,  provided  he  would  leave  the 
State. 

He  had  also  married  a  lady  in  January,  1844, 
who  held  certain  slaves,  inherited  from  her  former 
husband,  and  belonging  solely  to  her.  Unwilling 
to  become  their  owner,  and  the  law  not  permitting 
their  emancipation,  he  secured  them  to  his  w4fe 
by  a  deed  of  trust. 

It  will  be  seen  by  the  above  statements,  that 
Bishop  Andrew's  connection  with  slavery  was 
accidental,  and  not  in  violation  of  any  law  of  the 
Church. 

The  compromise-law,  adopted  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1816,  that  "no  slaveholder  shall  be 
eligible  to  any  official  station  in  our  Church  here- 
after, where  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he 
lives  will  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the 
liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,"  was  still  in  full 


162  Organization  of  the 

force.  This  law  evidentl}^  conveys  the  meaning 
not  only  that  ^vhere  the  laws  of  the  State  "  will 
admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the  liberated 
slave  to  enjoy  freedom/'  no  slaveholder  shall  be 
eligible  to  any  official  station  in  the  Church  until 
he  manumits  his  slaves,  but  also  that  in  those 
States  where  the  laws  will  not  "  admit  of  emanci- 
pation, and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  free- 
dom," the  owning  of  slaves  should  constitute  no 
barrier  to  an?/  office. 

In  the  State  of  Kentucky,  and  in  other  States 
where  the  laws  admitted  of  emancipation,  and  per- 
mitted the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  preach- 
ers were  not  elected  to  orders ;  while  in  Tennessee, 
and  the  Southern  States,  it  was  very  common  for 
our  preachers  to  own  slaves. 

As  late  as  the  autumn  of  1844,  after  the  action 
of  the  General  Conference  in  the  cases  of  Harding 
and  Bishop  Andrew,  Bishop  Janes,  who  presided 
over  the  Kentucky  Conference,  refused  to  ordain 
preachers  elected  to  orders  who  w^ere  slaveholders, 
but  at  the  same  time,  in  reply  to  an  inquiry  made 
by  the  Rev.  J.  B.  McFerrin,  of  the  Tennessee  Con- 
ference, who  was  present,  declared  his  wilhngness 
to  ordain  any  preachers  in  Tennessee  who  might  be 
elected  to  orders,  without  any  reference  whatever 
to  their  connection  with  slavery.  Bishop  Andrew 
resided  in  the  State  of  Georgia,  and  although  a 
slaveholder,  was  not  involved  in  slavery  in  any 


if.  E.  Church,  South.  163 

offensive  sense.  Moreover,  the  laws  of  that  State 
Avould  not  admit  of  emancipation,  nor  could  any 
slave  emancipated  in  Georgia  enjoy  freedom.  And 
hence,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  he  was  as  fully  pro- 
tected as  any  other  minister  in  the  Church. 

The  spirit  of  fanaticism  was  rife.  The  doctrines 
of  a  "  higher  law "  were  threatening  to  overflow 
the  mound  of  recognized  authority.  Emboldened 
by  their  success  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding,  on 
the  20th  day  of  May,  Mr.  Collins  offered  the  fol- 
lowing preamble  and  resolution : 

"  Whereas,  it  is  currently  reported,  and  gener- 
ally understood,  that  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the 
M.  E.  Church  has  become  connected  w^th  slavery; 
and,  whereas,  it  is  due  to  the  General  Conference 
to  have  a  proper  understanding  of  the  matter; 
therefore, 

''Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Episco- 
pacy be  instructed  to  ascertain  the  facts  in  the 
case,  and  report  the  result  of  their  investigation 
to  this  body  to-morrow  morning." 

On  the  21st  of  the  month  the  committee  pre- 
sented the  following  report : 

The  Committee  on  Episcopacy,  to  whom  was 
referred  a  resolution,  submitted  yesterday,  in- 
structing them  to  inquire  whether  any  one  of  the 
superintendents  is  connected  with  slavery,  pre- 
sented their  report  on  the  subject. 


164  Organization  of  the 

The  committee  had  ascertained,  previous  to  the 
reference  of  the  resolution,  that  Bishop  Andrew 
was  connected  with  slavery,  and  had  obtained  an 
interview  with  him  on  the  subject;  and  having 
requested  him  to  state  the  whole  facts  in  the 
premises,  they  presented  a  written  communication 
from  him  in  relation  to  this  matter,  and  asked 
leave  to  offer  it  as  his  statement  and  explanation 
of  the  case : 

"To  the  Committee  on  Episcopacy: 

"  Dear  Brethren : — In  reply  to  your  inquiry,  I 
submit  the  following  statement  of  all  the  facts 
bearing  on  my  connection  with  slavery.  Several 
years  since  an  old  lady,  of  Augusta,  Georgia,  be- 
queathed to  me  a  mulatto  girl,  in  trust  that  I 
should  take  care  of  her  until  she  should  be  nine- 
teen years  of  age ;  that  ivith  her  consent  I  should 
then  send  her  to  Liberia ;  and  that  in  case  of  her 
refusal,  I  should  keep  her,  and  make  her  as  free 
as  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Georgia  would  permit. 
When  the  time  arrived,  she  refused  to  go  to  Libe- 
ria, and  of  her  own  choice  remains  legally  my 
slave,  although  I  derive  no  pecuniary  advantage 
from  her,  she  continuing  to  live  in  her  own  house 
on  my  lot,  and  has  been  and  still  is  at  perfect  lib- 
erty to  go  to  a  free  State  at  her  pleasure ;  but  the 
laws  of  the  State  will  not  permit  her  emancipa- 
tion, nor  admit   such   deed  of   emancipation  to 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  165 

record,,  and  she  refuses  to  leave  the  State.  In 
her  case,  therefore,  I  have  been  made  a  slaveholder 
legally,  but  not  with  my  own  consent. 

"  2d.  About  five  years  since,  the  mother  of  my 
former  wife  left  to  her  daughter,  not  to  me,  a  negro 
boy;  and  as  my  wife  died  without  a  will  more 
than  two  years  since,  by  the  laws  of  the  State  he 
becomes  legally  my  property.  In  this  case,  as  in 
the  former,  emancipation  is  imj^racticable  in  the 
State ;  but  he  shall  be  at  liberty  to  leave  the  State 
whenever  I  shall  be  satisfied  that  he  is  prepared 
to  provide  for  himself,  or  I  can  have  sufficient  se- 
curity that  he  will  be  protected  and  provided  for 
in  the  place  to  which  he  may  go. 

"  3d.  In  the  month  of  January  last  I  married 
my  present  wife,  she  being  at  the  time  possessed 
of  slaA^es,  inherited  from  her  former  husband's  es- 
tate, and  belonging  to  her.  Shortly  after  my  mar- 
riage, being  unwilling  to  become  their  owner,  re- 
garding them  as  strictly  hers,  and  the  law  not  per- 
mitting their  emancipation,  I  secured  them  to  her 
by  a  deed  of  trust. 

"  It  will  be  obvious  to  you,  from  the  above  state- 
ment of  facts,  that  I  have  neither  bought  nor  sold 
a  slave ;  that  in  the  only  circumstances  in  which  I 
am  legally  a  slaveholder,  emancipation  is  imprac- 
ticable. As  to  the  servants  owned  by  my  wife,  I 
have  no  legal  responsibility  in  the  premises,  nor 
could  my  wife  emancipate  them  did  she  desire  to 


166  Organization  of  the 

do  so.  I  have  thus  plainly  stated  all  the  facts  in 
the  case;  and  submit  the  statement  for  the  consid- 
eration of  the  General  Conference.  . 

"  Yours  respectfully, 
(Signed)  "  James  0.  Andrew." 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

(Signed)  Hobert  Paine, 

Chairman  of  Committee  on  Episcopac3^ 

Upon  the  presentation  of  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee, accompanied  by  the  statement  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  Mr.  Collins  moved  that  the  report  be  laid 
on  the  table,  to  be  taken  up  to-morrow  as  the 
special  order  of  the  day.  His  reason  for  so  mov- 
ing was  that  a  meeting  of  the  Northern  delegates 
was  to  be  held  at  four  o'clock  this  afternoon.  He 
wished  any  of  the  Southern  brethren  to  attend 
who  might  choose  to  do  so. 

The  22d  of  May,  the  time  fixed  upon  for  the 
commencement  of  the  prosecution  of  Bishop  An- 
drew, on  motion,  the  case  was  proceeded  with. 

Mr.  Griffith,  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  rose 
and  said,  I  beg  leave  to  present  a  resolution  and 
suitable  preamble  in  reference  to  the  subject  now 
pending  before  the  Conference,  and  made  the  order 
of  the  day. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  following  preamble 
and  resolution : 


31.  E.  Church,  South,  167 

"  Whereas,  the  Rev.  James  0.  Andrew,  one  of 
the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
has  become  a  slaveholder;  and,  whereas,  it  has 
been,  from  the  origin  of  said  Church,  a  settled 
policy  and  the  invariable  usage  to  elect  no  person 
to  the  office  of  Bishop  who  w^as  embarrassed  w^ith 
this  ^  great  evil,'  as  under  such  circumstances  it 
would  be  impossible  for  a  Bishop  to  exercise  the 
functions  and  perform  the  duties  assigned  to  a  gen- 
eral superintendent  with  acceptance  in  that  large 
portion  of  his  charge  in  which  slavery  does  not 
exist ;  and,  whereas.  Bishop  Andrew  was  himself 
nominated  by  our  brethren  of  the  slaveholding 
States,  and  elected  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1832,  as  a  candidate  who,  though  living  in  the 
midst  of  a  slaveholding  population,  was  neverthe- 
less free  from  all  personal  connection  with  slavery; 
and,  whereas,  this  is,  of  all  periods  in  our  history 
as  a  Church,  the  one  least  favorable  to  such  an  in- 
novation upon  the  practice  and  usage  of  Method- 
ism as  confiding  a  part  of  the  itinerant  general 
superintend ency  to  a  slaveholder;  therefore, 

''Resolved,  That  the  Hev.  James  0.  Andrew  be, 
and  he  is  hereby  affectionately  requested  to  resign 
his  office  as  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  Alfred  Griffith, 

John  Davis." 

If  the  trial  of  Francis  A.  Harding  awakened  a 


168  Organizaiion  of  the 

general  interest  throughout  the  Church  and  the 
nation,  that  interest  was  greatly  augmented  in  the 
case  before  us.  The  Conference  was  held  in  the 
Green  Street  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  gal- 
leries of  which  were  crowded  to  overflowing,  while 
the  intelligence  of  the  arrest  of  the  official  char- 
acter of  Bishop  Andrew  sent  a  thrill  of  sadness 
to  every  Southern  heart. 

As  has  been  already  stated.  Bishop  Andrew  had 
violated  no  law  of  the  Church.  He  had  exercised 
the  functions  of  a  Bishop  in  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  since  1832,  at  which  time  he  was 
elevated  to  the  Episcopal  office.  For  the  office 
which  had  been  confided  to  his  trust,  he  was  emi- 
nently fitted.  His  executive  abilities  were  of  a 
high  order,  his  pulpit  qualifications  commanding, 
and  as  a  platform  speaker  he  had  scarcely  a  peer 
among;  his  brethren.  His  moral  and  reliaious 
character,  too,  was  above  reproach.  For  twelve 
years  he  had  presided  over  Conferences  in  the 
North  as  well  as  in  the  South,  with  the  greatest 
acceptability.  But  he  was  connected  with  slavery, 
it  matters  not  how,  and  the  fell  sjDirit  of  religious 
frenzy  must  strike  him  down. 

The  resolution  requesting  Bishop  Andrew  to  re- 
sign his  office,  having  been  offered  by  Mr.  Griffith, 
he  addressed  the  Conference  in  its  support  at  con- 
siderable length.  He  took  the  position  that  "a 
Bishop  is  only  an  officer  of  the  General  Confer- 


M,  K  Church,  South,  169 

ence,  created  for  specific  purposes,  and  for  no  other 
than  the  purposes  specified;"  that  originally  it  Avas 
not  "  intended  to  constitute  the  Bishop  an  officer 
for  life  under  all  circumstances,  but  they  reserved 
to  themselves,  as  Annual  Conferences,  power  even 
to  change  every  feature  of  the  system  of  govern- 
ment— to  change  every  thing  pertaining  to  the 
character  of  the  Church,  save  the  doctrines." 
These  views  had  been  held  for  more  than  twenty 
years  by  Mr.  Griffith,  and  in  the  radical  war  against 
the  powers  of  the  Episcopacy,  as  exercised  ac- 
cording to  the  Discipline  in  the  appointment  of 
Presiding  Elders,  had  been  freely  expressed  by 
him.  They  had  never,  however,  been  avowed  in 
any  previous  General  Conference. 

At  the  close  of  the  speech  of  Mr.  Griffith,  Dr. 
Longstreet  proposed  an  amendment  to  the  pream- 
ble and  resolution,  to  which  Mr.  Griffith  objected. 
Mr.  Drake,  of  Mississippi,  then  suggested  that 
the  preamble  be  altered  so  as  to  read,  "Whereas, 
Bishop  Andrew  has  become  connected  with  slavery 
as  stated  in  his  communication,"  to  which  no  ob- 
jection being  offered,  the  chair  announced  it  in- 
corporated with  the  preamble  and  resolution. 

Bishop  Soule  then  addressed  the  Conference, 
and  said,  I  rise,  sir,  seeing  no  other  speaker  on 
the  floor,  and  I  assure  you  and  the  Conference, 
strange  as  it  may  seem,  wnth  as  perfect  calmness 
of  spirit  as  I  ever  remember  to  have  possessed  at 
8 


170  Organization  of  the 

any  period  of  my  life.  I  cannot,  and  I  need  not, 
conceal  from  you,  sir,  or  from  this  General  Confer- 
ence, that,  since  the  commencement  of  this  session, 
I  have  been  the  subject  of  deep  mental  distress 
and  agony.  But  in  this  respect  the  season  of  my 
bitterness  has  passed  away.  Conscious  that  I 
have  pursued,  with  close  thought  and  prayer,  such 
a  course  as  was  within  my  power  to  harmonize  the 
brethren,  and  to  strengthen,  if  possible,  the  peace 
and  unity  of  this  body  and  of  the  whole  Church, 
I  have  calmly  submitted  the  whole  matter  to  the 
overruling  and  superintending  providence  of  Al- 
mighty God.  I  stand  connected  w^ith  this  subject 
individually,  and  in  connection  with  my  colleagues, 
in  a  peculiar  point  of  view,  but  I  have  at  this 
period  no  personal  interest  whatever  in  the  matter. 
I  am,  I  assure  you,  willing,  entirely  willing,  so- 
far  as  I  am  myself  concerned,  to  be  immolated; 
but  I  can  be  immolated  only  on  one  altar,  and  that 
is  the  altar  of  the  union  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church.  You  cannot,  all  the  powers  of  earth 
cannot,  immolate  me  upon  a  Northern  altar,  or  a 
Southern  altar.  Here  I  take  my  stand,  my  posi- 
tion. But  I  did  not  rise,  with  the  indulgence  of 
this  body,  this  morning,  even  to  touch  the  merits 
of  the  question  now  before  this  body.  It  would 
ill  become  me  in  the  relation  I  sustain  to  this  body 
and  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  do  it. 
But  I  have  risen  to  suggest  to  the  Conference 


31.  E.  Church,  South.       '  171 

some  considerations  which  I  hope  may  have  their 
influence  upon  the  mode  of  conducting  this  weighty 
concern.  I  speak  to  men  of  God — to  men  of  ex- 
perience— to  men  who  have  analyzed  the  elements 
of  human  nature,  and  of  ecclesiastical  and  civil 
polity — to  men  of  thought,  who  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  trace  causes  and  their  effects  throus-h  all 
the  diversified  forms  of  human  society.  I  speak 
to  Christian  men  and  Christian  ministers — I  speak 
to  young  men,  wdio  have  not  had  the  same  time 
as  the  aged,  nor  the  same  opportunities  from  ex- 
perience and  observation,  to  grasp  fully  these  great 
and  interesting  subjects.  I  trust  I  shall  hear  on 
the  floor  of  this  Conference  the  voice  of  age  and 
of  experience ;  and  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by 
the  deepest  interests  that  can  affect  our  beloved 
Zion — I  beseech  you  by  a  voice  from  the  tomb  of 
a  Wesley  and  a  beloved  Asbury,  and  from  the 
sleeping  -  places  of  our  venerated  fathers,  to  let 
your  spirits  on  this  occasion  be  perfectly  calm  and 
self-possessed,  and  perfectly  deliberate.  I  advise, 
in  the  place  in  which  I  stand,  that  the  younger 
men  hear  the  voice  of  age.  I  beg  you,  brethren, 
to  remember  that  you  stand  at  this  moment  before 
several  tribunals.  You  are  before  (I  speak  to  the 
General  Conference)  a  tribunal  in  the  galleries; 
and  whatever  view  you  may  take  of  this  subject, 
if  they  cannot  judge  of  the  merits  of  the  case  be- 
fore you,  such  are  their  enhghtened  ideas  of  what 


172  Organixation  of  the 

belongs  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  and  the  office  of 
Christian  ministers,  that  they  will  sit  in  judgment 
on  you.  I  would  also  observe  here  that,  as  a  great 
branch  of  the  Protestant  Christian  community,  our 
position  in  regard  to  this  subject  is  unique  and  distin- 
guished from  all  other  branches  of  that  community. 
So  far  as  I  know,  there  is  not  a  single  sister  (Prot- 
estant) Church  in  these  United  States,  or  in  the 
W'Orld,  having  any  legislation  on  the  subject  of 
slavery.  I  say,  in  this  w^e  are  unique,  w^e  are 
alone.  We  therefore  stand  in  our  action  on  this 
subject  before  the  tribunal  of  all  the  Christian 
Churches  of  our  own  land,  and  our  actions  will 
certainly  be  judged  of  by  that  tribunal.  We  act 
here  also  in  the  capacity  of  a  General  Conference, 
and  every  thing  we  do  here  is  to  go  out  before  the 
whole  body  of  ministers  and  people  whom  w^e  here 
represent — it  is  to  go  out  in  the  face  of  the  whole 
Church,  and  they  will  judge  with  respect  to  our 
action  in  the  premises.  We  are,  too,  before  the 
tribunal  of  public  opinion,  and  statesmen,  civilians, 
and  jurists,  have  an  interest  in  this  matter,  and 
they  will  judge  us  on  other  grounds,  and  in  refer- 
ence to  our  standards,  and  rules  of  action,  and  not 
as  we  shall  be  judged  by  the  great  mass.  They 
will  judge  by  the  rules  of  the  "  book,"  according 
as  our  action  is  founded  on  facts,  and  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  rules  of  that  book  which  contains 
the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  Church.     This 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  173 

consideration  will  certainly  occupy  your  minds  on 
this  question.  I  have  only  to  add,  and  with  this 
remark  I  shall  take  my  seat;  waiting  results  not 
without  solicitude  and  anxiety,  not  w^ithout  the 
deepest  concern  for  the  perpetual  union,  and  un- 
divided interests  of  this  great  body;  but  calm,  and 
perfectly  undisturbed,  waiting  the  issue,  and  com- 
mitting all  to  God.  A  word  about  decorum,  and 
the  mode  of  conducting  your  debates.  I  myself 
love  to  hear  hard  arguments,  but  I  love  to  hear 
them  in  soft  words ;  and  I  believe  that  any  man 
wdio  has  carefully  weighed  this  matter  wdll  con- 
cede that  arguments  are  proportionably  stronger 
as  they  are  conveyed  in  soft  words.  The  effect 
of  argument  in  debate  certainly  does  not  depend 
on  the  loudness  with  which  w^e  speak.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  raise  your  voices  so  that  you  may 
be  heard  in  the  remotest  parts  of  this  house,  and 
even  in  the  street.  Let  me  admonish  brethren 
who  may  take  part  in  this  discussion,  that  it  is  far 
from  being  important  to  their  case  that  they  should 
use  great  strength  of  voice,  and  where  this  is  done 
an  almost  universal  opinion  is  awakened  that  there 
is  undue  excitement  of  passion  in  the  case.  Avoid 
all  reflection  on  each  other.  Meet  brethren's  ar- 
guments if  you  can.  Confute  those  arguments  if 
you  can,  but  do  it  in  a  Christian  spirit,  and  with  a 
calm  and  undisturbed  mind.  Then  whatever  shall 
be  the  report  concerning  the  General  Conference, 


174  Organization  of  the 

it  shall  at  least  be  said  that  we  have  conducted 
ourselves  with  that  calmness,  and  with  that  Chris- 
tian and  ministerial  sobriety,  which  becomes  so 
grave  an  assembly,  and  so  grave  a  question.  I 
thank  the  Conference  for  their  indulgence  while  I 
have  spoken. 

The  Conference  was  then  addressed  by  Mr. 
Sandford,  of  the  New  York  Conference,  who  sup- 
ported the  resolution  exclusively  on  the  ground 
of  expedienc}^,  and  basing  that  expediency  on 
the  convulsions  that  would  follow,  and  the  loss 
of  very  large  numbers  of  their  members  if  they 
failed  to  remove  Bishop  Andrew. 

Mr.  Sandford  was  followed  by  Dr.  Winans,  of 
the  Mississippi  Conference,  who  made  the  first 
speech  on  the  Southern  side.  "Dr.  Winans  w^as 
an  impetuous  speaker,  after  the  Greek  model,  very 
plain  in  attire  and  appearance,  wearing  no  cravat, 
making  no  flourishes.  But  if  any  adversary  sup- 
posed that  this  unpretending  exterior  indicated  a 
mind  of  ordinary  caliber,  he  very  soon  changed 
his  opinion.  Massive  strength,  put  in  motion  by 
a  glowing  spirit,  furnished  a  mighty  momentum 
which  struck  like  the  swell  of  the  sea  when 
stormy  winds  rule  the  waters."     He  said  : 

I  appreciate  the  remarks  of  our  venerable  su- 
perintendent, especially  in  regard  to  the  manner  in 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  175 

which  this  discussion  should  be  conducted.  There 
is  one  point,  however,  on  which  I  must  put  in  a 
disclaimer  against  the  inference  which  the  Bish- 
op's remarks  would  warrant.  I  cannot  speak  on 
any  subject  without  speaking  loud ;  and  I  beg  to 
advertise  this  Conference,  and  the  spectators,  that 
in  speaking  loud  I  give  no  indication  of  exasper- 
ated feeling.  It  is  the  misfortune  of  my  constitu- 
tion, and  depends  on  no  particular  excitement  on 
the  question,  and  I  approach  this  subject  with  as 
much  calmness  as  I  do  any  other.  It  may  be,  sir, 
that  it  is  the  calmness  of  despair,  yet  result  it 
from  what  it  may,  I  am  calm,  and  perfectly  so. 
That  the  Conference  has  a  right,  an  abstract  right, 
with  or  without  cause,  to  request  any  member  of 
that  body  to  retire  from  the  Episcopacy,  I  am  not 
prepared  to  deny.  I  will  readily  admit,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  if  you,  or  any  one  of  your  venerable 
body,  should  be  subject  to  that  fearful  misfor- 
tune, alienation  of  mind,  it  would  be  proper  to 
obtain  your  consent  to  retire  from  your  very  im- 
portant station,  if  indeed  you  might  be  competent 
to  give  your  consent  in  such  a  case.  I  do  not, 
then,  dispute  the  abstract  right  of  this  Conference 
to  memorialize  Bishop  Andrew  on  the  subject  of 
his  retiring  from  the  office  he  sustains ;  nor  do  I 
conceive  it  to  be  out  of  the  limits  of  that  proper 
right  for  each  member  to  assign  the  reasons  for 
adopting  a  course  so   unusual.     Conceding   this 


176  Organization  of  the 

right,  I  claim;  on  the  other  hand,  a  full  and  per- 
fect right  for  every  member  to  assign  the  reasons 
why  he  should  not  join  in  this  request.  It  is 
farther  the  privilege  of  every  member  closely  to 
scrutinize,  and  rigidly  to  criticise,  the  reasons  as- 
signed for  this  remarkable  act,  by  those  who  move 
it.  It  will  be  my  purpose  to  use  hard  arguments, 
but  not  hard  terms,  though  I  confess  I  find  it  diffi- 
cult to  avoid  them.  If,  however,  I  do  use  hard 
terms,  they  shall  not  proceed  from  hard  feelings. 

I  do  not  know,  sir,  whether  I  am  to  consider  it 
at  all  necessary  to  notice  the  arguments  that  have 
been  already  presented  in  support  of  the  request 
which  is  attempted  to  be  made  to  the  Bishop.  But 
I  shall  call  your  attention,  and  the  attention  of  the 
Conference,  to  the  arguments  in  the  preamble  of 
the  resolution  inviting  the  Bishop  to  retire.  I  say, 
then,  that  the  first  statement,  the  very  first  state- 
ment or  proposition  in  the  preamble  is  not  true. 
I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  those  who  placed  it 
there  intended  to  state  an  untruth.  I  believe  they 
thought  it  was  true  when  they  made  the  state- 
ment ;  but  according  to  my  views  of  the  matter, 
it  is  not  true  that  the  settled  and  invariable  usage 
of  the  M.  E.  Church  has  been  not  to  elect  a  per- 
son having  slaves  to  the  office  of  a  Bishop.  The 
mere  fact  that  a  thing  has  not  been  done,  does  not 
constitute  usas:e.  I  admit  that  it  is  a  fact  that  no 
slaveholder  has  been  elected,  and  it  would  be  true 


M,  E.  Church,  South,  111 

to  affirm  that  it  has  been  the  invariable  custom  of 
the  M.  E.  Church  to  choose  for  Bishops  those  who 
were  not  slayeholders.  It  may  be,  sir,  that  slave- 
holders have  never  possessed  an  individual  among 
them  suitable  for  the  office ;  or  sectional  matters 
may  have  influenced  the  vote.  How  are  w^e  to 
arrive  at  the  fact  that  the  mere  election  of  a  man 
not  a  slaveholder  proves  the  settled  usage  of  not 
electing  slaveholders  ?  The  term  is  improperly 
employed,  and  I  could  proA^e  beyond  question  that 
this  has  not  been  the  usage  of  the  Church.  I 
could  take  you  back  to  the  General  Conference  at 
Philadelphia,  and  show  that  it  was  in  the  purpose 
of  the  Western  and  Middle  men  to  choose  for  the 
office  of  Bishop  a  slaveholder,  and  in  all  probabil- 
ity he  would  have  been  elected  to  the  office,  had 
there  not  been  management  and  interference  on 
the  part  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  to  defeat  the 
design.  The  usage  of  the  Church  is  not  against 
the  election  of  a  slaveholder  to  the  office  of  Bishop. 
I  will  correct  myself — I  should  say,  such  a  Bishop 
would  have  been  elected,  had  it  not  been  for  the 
management  and  trickery,  not  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  but  of  certain  members  of  that  Con- 
ference. 

The  next  point  is  more  palpably  untrue  than 
that  I  have  just  dismissed.  It  is  not  true  in  point 
of  fact,  though  it  has  the  show  of  truth.     It  goes 

on  the  principle  that  Bishop  Andrew  was  elected 
8* 


178  Organization  of  the 

to  the  office  on  Southern  nomination.  That  some 
Southern  brethren  were  concerned  in  his  nomina- 
tion is  true,  and  we  do  not  deny  it.  But  that  the 
Southern  party,  the  gTeat  Southern  sectional  divis- 
ion of  the  M.  E.  Church,  elected  him,  is  not  true, 
and  it  is  well  known  not  to  be  the  fact.  There 
was  a  report  prevailing  that  some  Southern  breth- 
ren were  drawn  into  a  conspiracy  by  which  the 
rights  of  the  South  would  have  been  invaded. 
Brother  Pickering  nominated  a  man  to  the  office 
who  was  known  to  be  a  slaveholder,  and  who 
would  have  been  elected  had  not  Bishop  Andrew — 

Mr.  Pickering.  I  would  correct  the  brother.  I 
never  nominated  any  such  man. 

Dr.  Winans.  I  am  glad  to  be  corrected,  sir; 
but  there  are  on  the  floor  of  this  house  those  who 
are  enlisted  in  the  enterprise  of  degrading  Bishop 
Andrew  from  his  office  who  did  propose  such  a 
measure.  When  we  stated  on  this  question,  that 
we  were  prepared  to  vote  for  a  slaveholder  for  the 
office  of  Bishop,  we  were  met  by  the  introduction 
of  James  0.  Andrew;  and  but  for  this,  a  slave- 
holder would,  in  all  probability,  have  been  elected 
in  1832,  and  selected  by  Northern  and  Western 
men.  I  do  not  believe  that  I  shall  be  contradicted 
on  this  subject,  and  in  contradiction  to  the  state- 
ment  in  the  preamble  of  this  resolution  I  may  say, 
that  we  only  just  missed  the  election  of  a  slave- 
holding  Bishop. 


31.  E,  Church,  South.  179 

Well;  now,  sir,  what  are  the  facts  of  the  case? 
Let  us  look  them  m  the  face.  Suppose  it  had 
been  inconsistent  with  the  genius  of  Methodism — 
though  it  is  not,  and  you  know  it  is  not,  you  dare 
not  assert  it,  for  the  Discipline  stares  you  in  the 
face  if  3^ou  do — but  suppose  it  was  contrary  to  the 
Discipline  to  elect  a  man  to  this  office  who  held 
slaves ;  suppose  all  this,  what  are  the  facts  of  the 
case  ?  Why,  that  Bishop  Andrew  had  no  part  in 
constituting  himself  a  slaveholder,  inasmuch  as  he 
gave  no  consent  thereto,  and  had  no  opportunity 
of  expressing  his  dissent.  This,  I  presume,  will 
not  be  denied,  inasmuch  as  the  Bishop's  statement, 
having  been  incorporated  in  the  preamble,  was  pre- 
sumed to  be  true.  Well,  then,  what  does  he  say 
in  the  first  instance  ?  Why,  that  without  his  con- 
sent, and  indeed  against  it — for  he  labored  to  free 
the  girl  who  was  left  to  him,  but  was  overruled 
by  the  strange  fact  that  the  girl,  at  years  of  dis- 
cretion and  intelligence,  preferred  to  be  a  slave, 
and  refused  to  be  set  free.  This  would  appear 
strange  to  the  North,  but  we  in  the  South  know 
all  about  it.  Well,  by  the  girl's  own  free  and  un- 
restrained determination  to  continue  his  slave,  he 
was  prevented  from  emancipating  her,  and  her 
will  bound  him  up  to  the  destiny  of  being  a  slave- 
holder, in  spite  of  all  his  desire  to  the  contrary. 
The  other  case  is  of  a  similar  character :  the  provi- 
dential devolvement  upon  him  of  a  slave  whom 


180  Organwation  of  the 

he  now  declares  free  to  go  when  and  wherever  he 
will,  provided  there  be  assurance  that  he  will  be 
provided  for,  or  will  be  able  to  provide  for  himself. 
Bishop  Andrew  did  not  wish  to  be  a  slaveholder, 
but  became  one  in  spite  of  his  efforts  to  the  con- 
trary. 

Well,  he  was  a  slaveholder  in  1840,  exposed  to 
the  malediction  of  the  North,  and  just  as  unlit  for 
the  general  superintendency  of  the  Union  in  De- 
cember, 1843,  as  in  January,  .1844,  for  he  was 
then  a  slaveholder.  And  what  harm  was  there  in 
marrying  a  woman  who  had  been  pronounced  by 
one  of  the  most  venerated  of  our  ministers  to  be 
as  fit  a  lady  for  a  Bishop's  wife  as  he  ever  saw  ? 
What  evil  had  he  done  by  becoming  a  slaveholder 
farther  by  that  marriage,  when  he  was  already  a 
slaveholder  beyond  control  ?  What  had  he  done, 
by  that  marriage,  to  prejudice  his  case?  Just 
nothing  at  all,  for  he  was  already  a  slaveholder 
by  immutable  necessity.  In  forming  a  matrimo- 
nial alliance,  in  seeking  one  who  was  to  become 
the  mother  of  his  children  and  the  companion  of 
his  declining  years,  he  had  married  a  pious  and 
estimable  lady,  and  that  is  the  whole  matter;  and 
yet  he  is  advised  to  leave  the  superintendency  on 
this  ground.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  the  only 
ground  maintained  by  the  advocates  of  the  reso- 
lution. 

What  has  he  done  by  executing  the  deed  of 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  181 

trust  ?  What  did  he  do  to  alter  the  position  of 
the  slaves  ?  Did  he  bring  upon  them  any  conse- 
quences prejudicial  to  them  ?  Or  did  he  incur  any 
obligation  to  deprive  that  lady  of  her  property  be- 
cause she  had  given  him  her  hand?  Why,  the 
position  will  be  this,  that  James  0.  Andrew  must 
cease  to  be  a  Bishop  because  he  has  married  a 
lady;  for  he  has  done  these  negroes  no  harm  by 
his  momentary  possession  of  them.  Was  it  his 
duty  to  marry  this  lady  in  order  that  he  might  set 
these  slaves  free?  If  not,  did  such  duty  arise 
out  of  the  fact  that  he  had  married  the  lady?  The 
proposition  condemns  itself,  inasmuch  as  a  change 
of  relation  has  taken  place  by  marrying  that  lady, 
and  he  is  now  no  longer  a  slaveholder  except 
against  his  consent.  By  the  providence  of  God 
at  first,  and  by  the  unsohcited  operations  of  fellow- 
beings,  he  is  constituted  a  slaveholder,  from  which 
relation  the  laws  of  Georgia  will  not  permit  him 
to  disengage  himself.  Being  in  this  situation,  and 
being  exposed  to  the  resentment  of  the  North,  he 
marries  an  interesting  woman,  and  places  her  prop- 
erty back  in  her  hands,  under  the  precise  circum- 
stances in  which  it  was  before  the  marriage.  And 
in  spite  of  all  this,  this  General  Conference  gravely 
meditates  the  act  of  removing  him  from  that  office 
he  has  filled  with  such  entire  satisfaction  to  the 
Church. 
1     But,  sir,  the  main  point  relied  upon  in  this  mat" 


182  Organization  of  the 

ter,  is  the  expediency  of  the  course  contempkted. 
Expediency!  Or,  in  other  words,  such  a  state  of 
things  has  been  gotten  up  in  the  North  and  in 
the  West  as  renders  it  necessary  for  Bishop  An- 
drew to  retire  from  the  office  of  the  superinten- 
dency,  if  we  would  preserve  the  union  of  the 
Church.  Sir,  I  will  meet  this  by  another  argu- 
ment on  expediency.  By  the  vote  contemplated 
by  this  body,  and  solicited  by  this  resolution,  you 
wdll  render  it  expedient — nay,  more,  you  render 
it  indispensable — nay,  more,  you  render  it  iincon- 
irollalhj  necessari/,  that  as  large  a  portion  of  the 
Church — and,  permit  me  to  add,  a  portion  always 
conformed  in  their  views  and  practices  to  the  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Church — I  say  that  by  this  vote 
you  render  it  indispensably,  ay,  uncontrollably, 
necessary  that  that  portion  of  the  Church  should 
— I  dread  to  pronounce  the  w^ord,  but  you  under- 
stand me.  Yes,  sir,  you  create  an  uncontrollable 
necessity  that  there  should  be  a  disconnection  of 
that  large  portion  of  the  Church  from  your  body. 
It  is  not  because  there  are  prejudices  waked  up 
by  unceasing  agitation  year  after  year,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  spirit  and  language  of  the  Discipline, 
but  it  arises  out  of  the  established  law^s  of  society 
— from  a  state  of  things  that  is  under  the  control 
of  political  and  civil  government,  w^hich  no  minis- 
ter of  the  gospel  can  control  or  influence"  in  the 
smallest  degree.     If  you  pass  this  action  in  the 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  183 

mildest  form  in  Avhich  you  can  approach  the  Bishop, 
you  will  throw  every  minister  in  the  South  hors 
de  combat ;  you  will  cut  us  off  from  all  connection 
with  masters  and  servants,  and  will  leave  us  no 
option — God  is  my  witness  that  I  speak  with  all 
sincerity  of  purpose  toward  you — but  to  be  dis- 
connected with  your  body.  If  such  necessity  ex- 
ists on  your  part  to  drive  this  man  from  his  office, 
we  reassert  that  this  must  be  the  result  of  your 
action  in  this  matter.  We  have  no  will,  no  choice 
in  this  thing.  It  comes  upon  us  as  destiny ;  it 
comes  with  overwhelming  force,  and  all  we  can  do 
is  to  submit  to  it.  Let  us,  then,  pass  before  you, 
and  then  give  such  weight  as  you  think  fitting  to 
the  argument  for  expediency  embraced  in  the  pre- 
amble to  this  resolution,  and  let  that  determine 
your  vote  in  this  matter.  There  may  come  a  time 
when  your  hearts  will  bleed  at  the  recollection  of 
having  cut  off  from  your  body — for  we  will  never 
go  voluntarily — as  firm  and  good  friends,  and  as 
honest  in  our  attachment  to  Discipline,  as  any 
other  portion  of  the  Church.  Yes,  the  time  may 
come  in  your  after-lives  when  you  will  lament  an 
act  that  has  been  done  so  hurriedly.  I  say  hur- 
riedly, because  it  has  been  scarcely  three  weeks 
under  consideration — hurriedly,  because  you  have 
had  no  intercourse  with  your  societies  on  the  sub- 
ject— hurriedly,  because  the  question  has  not  even 
been  mooted  in  those  regions  where  you  appre- 


184  Organisation  of  the 

hend  your  difficulty — and  hurriedly,  because  you 
are  cutting  off  thirteen  hundred  preachers  and  four 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  members,  against  whom 
lies  no  allegation  of  having  departed  from  the  prin- 
ciples and  laws  of  your  Book  of  Discipline.  Sir, 
I  jDrotest  against  the  vote  that  is  sought  on  this 
question ;  and  I  conjure  you  by  the  love  of  God, 
by  your  regard  for  the  Discipline  of  the  Church, 
and  by  the  interests  of  the  South,  to  pause  ere 
you  take  this  step.  I  throw  out  of  the  considera- 
tion the  interests  of  the  masters  of  slaves,  those 
hated,  and  abhorred,  and  despised  beings — I  leave 
out  of  the  question  the  spiritual  welfare  of  thou- 
sands of  those  poor  oppressed  people  for  whose 
interests  and  welfare  you  profess  so  much  solic- 
itation— the  bleeding  slave  himself,  cut  off,  by 
your  action,  from  our  approach,  ministry,  and 
counsels — I  leave  these  things  out  of  the  question, 
and  conjure  you  to  let  the  union  of  our  beloved 
Church  plead  effectually  to  prevent  you  from  giviog 
the  vote  which  is  sought  by  this  resolution.  Al- 
ready, (and  perhaps  this  may  be  the  last  time  I 
shall  have  the  opportunity  to  speak  on  the  floor 
of  this  General  Conference,)  I  say,  already  the 
evil  effects  of  the  abolition  excitement  are  becom- 
ing apparent,  for  to  that  is  to  be  traced  the  dire 
necessity  you  plead  in  the  case.  It  has  hedged 
in  the  poor  negro,  and  shut  him  up  from  access  to 
his  minister,  and  it  has  shut  the  mouth  of  the 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  185 

minister,  and  will  you  throw  the  blackness  and 
darkness  of  death  over  him  by  your  vote?  AVill 
you  drive  us  from  the  Connection,  or  will  you  hold 
back  your  hands  and  prevent  the  pernicious  effects 
of  such  action  as  is  at  present  sought  at  your 
hands?  I  leave  the  matter  with  you,  and  your 
conscience,  and  your  God. 

Bishop  Wightman,  in  his  Life  of  Bishop  Capers, 
in  reference  to  Dr.  Winans's  speech,  says  it  was 
delivered  with  "true  Demosthenean  force.  The 
irrepressible  emotion,  the  ^  erect  countenance,'  the 
flashing  eye,  and  ringing  voice,  the  unfaltering 
prediction  of  consequences  that  were  to  follow, 
and  resound  through  all  Methodist  history,  made 
the  speech  memorable." 

Mr.  Bowen,  of  the  Oneida  Conference,  spoke  in 
favor  of  the  resolution,  but  in  his  speech  no  new 
argument  was  presented,  advocating  simply  the 
plea  of  expediency. 

At  the  close  of  Mr.  Bowen's  speech.  Dr. 
Lovick  Pierce,  of  Georgia,  addressed  the  Confer- 
ence.    In  his  speech  he  said : 

Can  anybody,  therefore,  expect  that  this  man, 
blameless  before  heaven  and  before  this  con- 
gregation of  ministers,  even  if  he  were  asked 
to  do  this  thing  by  two-thirds  of  this  Confer- 
ence, could  do  it,  would  do  it,  dare  do  it,  with 


186  Org  animation  of  the 

the  effects  that  would  groAV  out  of  the  movement 
written,  with  the  finger  of  God,  upon  his  heart?  Is 
it  the  doctrine  of  expediency,  sh'?  I  believe  that 
this  is  the  only  plea  that  can  be  put  in  that  has 
one  single  vestige  either  of  truth,  justice,  or  pro- 
priety; and  allow  me  to  say,  that  unless  I  am 
greatly  mistaken,  the  adoption  of  the  resolution 
now  before  the  General  Conference,  on  the  ground 
of  expediency,  is  an  act  done  by  Methodist  min- 
isters by  which,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
they  invert  the  established  order  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. In  the  difiiculties  which  arose  in  the 
Church  in  the  days  of  the  great  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles,  he  said,  in  reference  to  this  point,  "All 
things  are  lawful  for  me,  but  all  things  are  not 
expedient."  Shall  we  ask  Bishop  Andrew  to  pay 
this  tribute  to  expediency?  Why,  if  it  were  law- 
ful to  demand  it,  and  the  yielding  of  it  would  pro- 
duce such  disastrous  results  as  must  be  produced, 
it  would  be  inexpedient  for  this  body  of  God- 
fearing ministers  to  make  any  such  demand.  To 
the  law  and  to  the  testimony  I  feel  myself  bound 
closely  to  adhere.  I  would  not  say  any  thing  that 
has  been  said  by  any  predecessor  in  this  case; 
yet  I  beg  leave  to  add,  in  farther  confirmation  of 
the  remarks  made  by  my  worthy  Brother  Winans, 
that  of  all  notions  that  were  ever  defended  before 
a  body  of  Christian  ministers,  the  notion  of  asking 
an  act  of  this  sort  on  the  ground  of  expediency, 


M,  E,   Church,  South.  187 

when  it  is  as  inexpedient  for  one  portion  of  a 
united  body  of  Christians  to  this  as  it  is  expedient 
for  the  other  that  it  should  be  done,  is,  to  me,  the 
most  fearful  mockery  of  all  sound  logic.  Do  that 
which  is  inexpedient  for  us,  because  for  you  it  is 
expedient!  Never,  while  the  heavens  are  above 
the  earth,  let  that  be  recorded  on  the  journals  of 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church!  What  is  the  evidence  that  it  is  ex- 
pedient that  this  thing  should  be  done  in  any  por- 
tions of  these  growing  States?  The  opinion  and 
testimony  of  the  brethren?  Take  our  brethren 
on  their  own  ground  in  other  portions  of  the 
United  States  equally  linked  together  by  that 
golden  chain  which,  if  it  be  possible  to  avert  it,  I 
pray  God  may  never  be  broken.  Do  you  ask  us 
how  this  matter  is  to  be  met?  It  is  to  be  met  by 
the  conservative  principle  and  the  compromise 
laws  of  this  Book  of  Discipline.  Show  your  peo- 
ple that  Bishop  Andrew  has  violated  any  one  of 
the  established  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Church, 
and  that  he  refuses  to  conform  himself  to  those 
established  laws  and  usages,  and  you  put  your- 
selves in  the  right,  and  us  in  the  wrong. 

My  beloved  brethren,  there  is  but  one  man 
older  than  myself  in  the  land  that  I  live  in  who 
is  now  in  the  ministry,  and  he  is  at  present  an 
inefficient  man.  I  am  the  oldest  efficient  minister 
belonging  to  the  Georgia  Conference.      I  never 


188  Organization  of  the 

wedded  my  heart  to  my  family  with  less  desires 
that  this  wedlock  should  be  ruptured,  than  I  did 
to  the  Church  which  found  me  a  sinner,  and  I 
hope,  through  God's  grace,  will  land  me  in  heaven. 
And  since  the  day  that  I  made  myself  acquainted 
with  the  Methodist  Church — and  will  the  record- 
ing angel  write  it  this  moment  in  the  book  of  eter- 
nity?— I  affirm,  that,  so  far  as  religion  has  been 
concerned  in  the  South,  no  question  has  ever  done 
so  much  harm  to  saving  godliness  as  the  intermed- 
dling of  the  Llethodist  Church  with  the  question 
of  slavery;  and  could  the  cap  of  hell  be  lifted  to- 
day, I  fear  that  the  groans  of  many  damned  would 
be  heard  coming  up,  and  dating  the  ground  of 
their  fall  from  the  merciless  act  of  the  Church 
against  a  free  constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  land. 
The  Methodist  Church  may  have  had  much  to  do 
with  slavery  in  the  concrete,  as  it  is  called,  but 
has  no  more  business  with  slavery  in  the  abstract 
than  with  the  tariff;  and,  what  is  a  great  misfor- 
tune, you  may  put  what  construction  you  please 
on  your  actions  and  doings  in  this  case,  but  you 
have  "passed  the  Kubicon."  In  the  year  1836  I 
desired  that  a  protest  should  be  entered  on  the 
journal  of  the  Conference  against  what  was  then 
believed  to  be  the  doctrine,  that  any  man  who, 
by  any  circumstance,  was  connected  with  domes- 
tic slavery,  should  be  deemed  as  living  under  an 
act  of  outlawry  with  this  Church. 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  189 

Finally,  I  say,  pass  this  resolution,  and  the 
whole  of  the  Southern  States  are  hurled  into  con- 
fusion at  once;  and  the  brother  that  would  lie 
down  to  be  trampled  upon  by  such  an  act  of  this 
body,  would  be  regarded  as  unworthy  the  office 
he  held,  and  unworthy  to  preach  the  gospel  of 
Jesus.  I  am  against  the  resolution,  and  am  glad 
to  make  it  known  that  I  am  against  it  on  princi- 
ples pure  as  those  that  kindle  the  glory  of  high 
heaven — not  because  I  am  a  pro-slavery  man,  but 
because  God  did  not  call  me  to  legislate  on  these 
matters. 

Jerome  C.  Berryman,  of  the  Missouri  Confer- 
ence, next  spoke  in  opposition  to  the  resolution. 
He  was  followed  by  Seymour  Coleman,  of  the 
Troy  Conference,  who  was  in  favor  of  the  reso- 
lution. Give  them  a  slaveholding  Bishop,  he 
said,  and  you  blow  up  the  fortress  from  its  foun- 
dations. He  had  expected  a  most  peaceful  Con- 
ference, supposing,  as  he  did,  that  the  firebrands 
had  left  their  ranks  last  year,  and  he  thought  that 
now  they  should  have  peace  in  their  borders.  The 
Southern  brethren  knew  little  of  the  labors  of  the 
Northern  men  to  secure  their  comfort  and  safety. 
Give  them  a  slaveholding  Bishop,  and  they  make 
the  whole  of  the  North  a  magazine  of  gunpowder, 
and  the  Bishop  a  firebrand  in  the  midst.  The 
position  Bishop  Andrew  sustained  in  the  Church 


190  Organization  of  the 

had  made  this  matter  to  cause  more  trouble  than 
any  thing  he  had  ever  known  to  take  place  in  the 
Church.  The  step  was  wonderfully  unfortunate. 
To  the  brief  speech  of  Mr.  Coleman,  Dr.  Smith, 
of  Virginia,  made  the  following  reply:  He  wished 
to  correct  the  brother  in  his  statement  of  a  fact, 
and  one  on  which  the  whole  merit  of  his  argument 
was  based.  It  was  that  he,  in  deep  sympathy 
with  the  South,  had  successfully  warred  against 
abolitionism.  They  had  not  so  understood  it,  and 
if  he  would  make  his  point  good  by  argument  he 
would  have  accomplished  a  great  thing.  They 
had  viewed  it  differently,  and  believed  it  to  be 
different.  The  arguments  of  the  abolitionists  had 
been  as  harmless  as  the  lispings  of  helj)less  infancy 
in  their  influence  on  the  South.  They  gained 
some  bad  eminence,  and  were  the  means  of  doing 
harm  to  the  poor  blacks.  That  the  North  opposed 
the  abolitionists  out  of  sympathy  for  the  South, 
would  demand  proof.  In  1836  the  Northern 
brethren  complained  that  it  was  among  them  that 
abolitionism  was  doing  all  the  mischief;  that  there 
its  desolating  footsteps  were  to  be  marked  and 
mourned  over,  and  groaned  under,  as  a  burden 
intolerable  to  be  borne.  And  such  was  the  truth 
of  the  case.  In  1836  we  were  asked  to  leave 
this  matter  alone,  and  were  told  that  the  North- 
ern brethren  had  more  at  stake  than  we  had. 
And  they  succeeded  in  shutting  the  mouths  of 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  101 

some  of  the  brethren,  but  not  with  my  consent. 
They  now  w^oukl  have  it  understood  that  it  was 
for  the  South  they  then  labored. 

Messrs.  Thomas  Strin^rfield,  of  the  Holston 
Conference,  Thomas  Crowder,  of  Virginia,  John 
Spencer,  of  Pittsburgh,  and  Dr.  Nathan  Bangs,  of 
New  York,  were  the  next  speakers — the  two  for- 
mer in  opposition  to  the  resolution,  and  the  two 
latter  in  f^^vor  of  it.  Messrs.  Stringfield  and 
Crowder,  in  their  remarks,  were  courteous,  digni- 
fied, convincing.  The  argument,  based  upon  expe- 
diency,  that  had  been  urged  by  Northern  men,  w^as 
triumphantly  met  by  Mr.  Stringfield.  It  is  inex- 
pecUent,  said  he,  that  Bishop  Andrew^  should 
resign.  If  the  Bishop  be  shuffled  out  of  office, 
some  one  must  be  elected  to  fill  his  place;  and 
such  a  one,  whoever  he  may  be,  wdll  meet  with  as 
little  favor  in  the  South  as  Bishop  Andrew  would, 
with  all  his  disabilities,  in  the  North.  Who,  sir, 
will  elbow  Bishop  Andrew  out  of  the  pulpit,  and 
fill  his  place  in  our  Southern  congregations?  Will 
any  one  do  so  that  lifts  his  hand  in  favor  of  this 
resolution?  It  is  not  likely,  sir,  that  another 
Southern  man  wall  be  elected;  and,  sir,  a  line  is 
to  be  drawn  by  this  vote.  It  will  be  a  test  vote — 
a  part?/  vote ;  and,  sir,  I  know  not  what  sort  of 
heart  a  man  must  have  that  could  go  to  the  South, 
as  Bishop  Andrew's  successor,  under  these  circum- 
stances.   I  am  sure  he  would  be  unfit  for  a  Bishop. 


192  Organization  of  the 

I  know  this  is  a  delicate  subject — and  some  may 
think  it  should  not  be  mentioned  here — but  it  will 
be  thought  of  by  the  people,  and,  in  spite  of  us,  it 
will  have  its  bearings.  There  are  two  sides  to 
this  question.  Inexpediency  is  set  over  against 
inexpediency — one  evil  against  another  evil ;  and 
as  a  lesser  evil  is  a  relative  good,  it  is  to  my  mind 
clearly  inexpedient  for  Bishop  Andrew^  to  resign. 

Thomas  Stringfield  was  a  Kentuckian  by  birth, 
his  parents  having  removed  to  that  State  previous 
to  1796,  in  which  year  he  was  born.  Blessed 
with  religious  instruction  from  early  childhood,  at 
eight  years  of  age  he  openly  professed  faith  in 
Christ.  In  1806  his  parents  removed  to  Alabama, 
wdiere  he  resided  until  at  the  age  of  sixteen  years, 
when,  in  obedience  to  his  country's  call,  he  en- 
tered the  American  army  under  General  Jackson. 
In  the  army  he  was  no  less  distinguished  for  his 
faithful  adherence  to  the  religion  he  professed, 
than  for  his  intrepid  courage  in  the  field  of  battle. 
During  his  connection  with  the  army,  wdiile  on 
guard,  he  received  a  shot,  from  an  Indian's  gun, 
in  the  forehead,  which  left  a  scar  for  life. 

At  the  Tennessee  Conference  in  1816,  he  offered 
himself  as  an  itinerant,  and  was  accepted.  From 
the  time  he  entered  the  ranks  as  an  itinerant 
preacher  until  Grod  called  him  home,  he  performed 
the  duties  of  an  evangelist  with  commendable  zeal. 

A  careful  examination  of  the  appointments  filled 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  193 

hy  Mr.  Stringfield,  and  an  acquaintance  with 
the  territory  which  they  embraced,  impresses  us 
at  once,  not  only  with  the  vastness  of  his  labors, 
but  w^ith  the  privations  he  endured,  and  the  sacri- 
fices he  made  for  the  cause  of  Christ. 

At  the  General  Conference  of  1836  he  was 
elected  to  the  editorship  of  the  South-western 
Christian  Advocate,  located  in  Nashville,  Tennes- 
see, in  w^hich  position  he  remained  until  1840. 

Retiring  from  the  duties  of  an  editor,  he  travels 
for  five  years  as  Agent  for  the  American  Bible 
Society,  and  then  returns  to  the  pastoral  work, 
where,  with  unabated  zeal,  he  prosecutes  his  high 
and  holy  calling.  At  one  time  we  find  him  the 
valiant  leader  of  the  hosts  on  an  extensive  and  la- 
borious District,  and  then  w^e  see  him  performing 
the  duties  of  an  evangelist  in  a  more  circumscribed 
sphere;  and  anon  as  Agent  for  Strawberry  Plains 
College. 

The  immense  labors  he  had  performed  through 
a  period  of  thirty-seven  years,  told  fearfully  upon 
his  constitution,  and  in  1853  he  was  placed  on  the 
superannuated  roll.  Rallying  again,  in  1854  he 
travels  the  Dandridge  Circuit,  and  in  1855  is  ap- 
pointed to  Loudon  Station.  Unable  longer  to  go 
in  and  out  before  his  brethren  in  the  active  duties 
of  an  itinerant  preacher,  he  returns  to  the  super- 
annuated list,  where  he  remains  until  called  from 
labor  to  reward.  At  half- past  two  o'clock,  on 
9 


194  Organization  of  the 

the  12tli  of  June,  1858,  he  sweetly  fell  asleep  in 
Jesus. 


Mr.  Crowder  said:  Our  Discipline  demands  of 
a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  the  same  purity  of  heart 
and  rectitude  of  life  which  are  inculcated  in  the 
Bible;  and  if  these  remain  as  fair  as  those  of  any 
other  elder  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
then  he  has  violated  no  rule  of  our  Discipline — 
because  he  could  not  have  a  fair  moral  and  minis- 
terial character  if  he  were  a  transgressor  of  either 
the  precepts  of  religion  or  the  rules  of  Discipline. 
On  what,  then,  I  ast  again,  does  this  expediency 
stand  as  its  foundation?  Its  foundation,  sir,  is  a 
combination  of  circumstances;  and  this  combina- 
tion of  circumstances  has  been  brought  about  chiefly 
by  a  spirit  which  I  may  call  "  Legion."  But  w^iere 
did  this  spirit  start  up?  In  the  South?  No,  sir; 
the  South  has  not  been  troubled  at  all.  Its  course 
has  been  quiet,  obedient,  and  kind,  leaving  myself 
out  of  the  question.  The  South,  sir,  has  never 
made  your  table  groan  with  petitions  and  memo- 
rials for  changes  in  our  Discipline.  The  South 
has  never  made  any  aggressive  complaints  against 
the  North.  Sir,  this  spirit  came  up  in  the  North 
and  East;  I  mean  the  spirit  of  "abolition."  This 
spirit  has  put  the  causes  in  operation  which  have 
brought  about  the  combination  of  circumstances 
that  is  the  basis  of  this  expediency.     Now,  sir,  I 


M,  E,  Church,  South.  195 

ask  these  fathers  and  these  brethren  if  this  basis 
of  expediency  is  not  too  dark  in  origin,  and  ruin- 
ous in  results,  on  which  to  depose  our  beloved 
Bishop  Andrew?     Can  you  do  this,  brethren? 

It  is  well  know^n  how  seriously 

the  abolition  movement  affected  the  South,  brine:- 
ing  about  strife  and  division  between  them  and  the 
North.  Now,  sir,  let  it  go  abroad  that  this  Gen- 
eral Conference  requested  Bishop  Andrew  to  re- 
sign on  the  ground  of  an  expediency  so  doubtful 
as  this,  because  he  may  not  be  cordially  received 
in  some  portions  of  the  North,  and  the  division  of 
our  Church  may  follow — a  civil  division  of  this 
great  confederacy  may  follow  that,  and  then  hearts 
will  be  torn  apart,  master  and  slave  arrayed  against 
each  other,  brother  in  the  Church  against  brother, 
and  the  North  against  the  South — and  when  thus 
arrayed,  with  the  fiercest  passions  and  energies  of 
our  natures  brought  into  action  against  each  other, 
civil  war  and  far-reaching  desolation  must  be  the 
final  results.  My  dear  brethren,  are  you  prepared 
for  this?  No,  I  am  sure  you  are  not.  Then  re- 
fuse to  pass  the  resolution  now  pending  before  the 
Conference,  and  permit  our  beloved  Bishop  still  to 
go  on  his  way  of  usefulness,  and  I  am  persuaded 
that  the  fears  wdiich  many  brethren  honestly  enter- 
tain will  never  be  realized.  Brethren,  we  have, 
as  instruments  in  the  hands  of  God,  been  doing_ 
a  great  work  in  the  North  and  South;  let  us  still 


196  Organization  of  the 

work  together  for  the  honor  of  our  common 
Saviour  and  the  salvation  of  the  souls  of  the  peo- 
ple, white  and  colored — let  us  bring  the  hearts  of 
the  community  generally  under  the  influence  of 
religion,  and  the  work  of  emancipation  will  come 
on  as  a  natural  result. 

It  is  with  pleasure  that  we  contemplate  the 
character  of  such  a  man  as  Thomas  Crowder.  He 
was  born  in  Wake  county,  North  Carolina,  Sep- 
tember 22,  1797.  His  parents  were  members  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  were  deeply 
pious,  and  endeavored  to  bring  up  their  children 
"in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord." 

It  had  been  the  intention  of  Mr.  Crowder  to 
prepare  for  the  bar.  No  profession  opened  up 
before  a  young  man  of  promise  at  that  period  a 
more  attractive  field  than  that  of  the  law,  and 
none  more  readily  invited  to  fortune  or  to  fame. 
To  prepare  for  this  profession,  he  had  labored  of 
nights  during  his  minority,  and  to  attain  this  ob- 
ject he  was  prosecuting  his  collegiate  course. 
But  God  had  destined  him  for  a  higher  and  nobler 
work. 

He  entered  the  Virginia  Conference  in  1821, 
and  soon  took  high  rank  among  his  brethren,  and 
filled  many  of  the  most  important  appointments  in 
that  Conference. 

The  reply  of  Mr.   Spencer  was  unworthy  the 


31.  U.  Church,  South,  197 

occasion  and  the  Conference  of  which  he  was  a 
representative.     He  said: 

Well,  sir,  it  is  alleged  that  our  present  action  is 
a  novel  procedure.  Admitted;  but  whose  fault  is 
it?  We  never,  till  now,  had  occasion  to  complain 
of  any  of  our  Superintendents.  We  now  have, 
and  therefore  our  proceedings  must  be  new.  This 
is  plain.  The  inquiry  is  raised,  By  what  rule  can 
we  touch  Bishop  Andrew  ?  What  specific  rule  has 
he  violated?  We  ought  to  remember  that  the  mere 
silence  of  the  Discipline  in  regard  to  a  particular 
case  is  no  evidence  that  action  in  that  case  would 
be  contrary  to  our  rules.  An  illustration  will 
place  this  in  its  true  light.  Suppose  that  instead 
of  marrying  a  respectable  lady  owning  slaves, 
Bishop  Andrew  had  married  a  colored  woman. 
Would  Southern  or  Northern  brethren  say,  either 
that  he  had  broken  an  express  rule  of  Discipline, 
or  that  he  would  nevertheless  be  well  qualified  for 
a  Bishop  in  our  Church?  Neither  the  one  nor  the 
other.  They  doubtless  would  depose  him  at  once, 
though  there  is  no  rule  to  be  found  declaring,  in  so 
many  words,  that  no  white  man  shall  marry  a 
colored  woman  on  pain  of  degradation.  It  is 
thought  by  some  that  before  the  case  can  be 
reached  a  new  rule  must  be  made;  and  if  so,  it 
would  be  an  ex  post  facto  law.  So  says  some 
driveler  in  the  Tribune  Extra  found  yesterday  in 


198  Organization  of  the 

the  Conference -room.  He  was  ashamed  to  give 
his  name,  and  well  he  might,  as  he  knew  he  was 
meddling  with  other  people's  business,  and  at  the 
same  time  dealing  in  slanderous  allegations.  Let 
us  look  at  this.  An  ex  post  facto  law  is  always 
retrospective.  But  if  we  made  a  rule  to  rid  our- 
selves of  our  present  difficulty,  it  would  not  be  to 
punish  a  past  offense,  but  to  remove  from  our 
ecclesiastical  car  a  present  incumbrance,  and  one 
that  must  be  removed  or  crush  us  into  ruin. 

•  •••••••• 

We  hear  much  concerning  the  Constitution. 
The  w^ord  constitutional  is  repeated  again  and 
again.  Here  I  am  at  a  loss.  I  cannot  tell  w^hat 
brethren  mean.  I  suppose  the  Constitution  of 
our  Church  to  be  embodied  in  our  Articles  of  Relig- 
ion, our  Restrictive  Rules,  and  our  General  Rules. 
But  where  is  it  said,  in  these,  that  a  slaveholding 
Bishop  must  remain  in  office  despite  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference?  or  that  no  rule  can  be  made  to 
touch  such  a  case?  Nowhere.  Then  is  it  not 
plain  that  these  are  high-sounding  w^ords  used 
without  meaning?  But,  sir,  much  is  said  of  ex- 
j)ediency.  Well,  let  us  look  at  expediency.  It  is 
alleged  that  it  would  be  a  dreadful  thing  to  pass 
the  resolution  before  us,  as  a  matter  of  expediency. 
This  is  a  grave  subject.  But  is  not  expediency 
at  the  foundation  of  many  grave  and  important 
subjects?     Mr.  President,  how  did  you  and  your 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  199 

colleagues  get  into  the  Episcopal  office?  Expe- 
diency put  you  there,  expediency  keeps  you  there, 
and  when  expediency  requires  it,  you  shall  be  re- 
moved from  your  seats — yes,  every  one  of  you. 
Expediency  is  the  foundation  of  our  Episcopacy. 
Nay  more,  it  is  the  very  basis  of  Methodism. 
We  are  conjured  by  a  brother,  in  a  solemn  manner, 
to  refrain,  lest  we  ruin  souls.  He  doubts  not  that, 
if  we  could  open  the  doors  of  perdition,  and  look 
down  into  the  world  of  woe,  we  should  find  that 
souls  were  lost  by  being  driven  from  the  Method- 
ist Church  through  her  action  against  slavery  in 
the  days  of  our  fathers !  I  meet  this  by  remark- 
ing, some  think  in  that  event  we  would  be  likely 
to  hear  waitings  arising  from  those  doomed  to  hell 
by  reason  of  our  connivance  at  slavery. 

Fearful  things  are  said  about  division.  Our 
feelings  have  been  roused  up.  We  have  wept  and 
prayed.  The  clouds  have  gathered  in  the  distance. 
AVe  have  seen  the  lightning.  We  have  heard  the 
muttering  thunders.  Our  destruction  is  threat- 
ened. But  if  it  comes,  how  can  we  help  it?  We 
have  made  no  change,  and  we  ask  none.  Who 
has  brought  this  evil  upon  us  ?  If  we  are  ruined, 
on  whose  head  will  rest  the  blood  of  a  murdered 
Church?  The  Lord  have  mercy  on  us!  We  now 
come  to  this  point:  Shall  we  stand  by  our  princi- 
ples?    Will  we  maintain  true  Methodism?     Or 


200  Organization  of  the 

shall  we  suffer  the  most  daring  innovation  upon 
our  usages?  Must  our  foundations  be  uprooted, 
and  our  fair  edifice  be  tumbled  into  destruction,  by 
retaining  a  slaveholder  in  the  Episcopacy? 

The  speech  of  Dr.  Bangs  was  moderate  in  tem- 
per. He  congratulated  the  Conference  on  the  kind 
and  Christian  spirit  they  had  hitherto  maintained, 
which  he  hoped  would  be  preserved  through  the 
whole  of  this  important  debate.  He  would  make 
a  few  remarks  on  what  fell  from  Dr.  Winans. 
That  gentleman  had  said  that  the  preamble  con- 
tained in  the  proposition  was  not  true,  because  it 
affirmed  that  the  having  a  slaveholding  Bishop 
was  contrary  to  usage.  Must  they  adopt  a  practice 
to  make  it  contrary  to  usage  ?  When  a  practice  has 
always  been  adopted,  it  certainly  is  according  to 
usage.  Now  (said  Dr.  Bangs)  I  think  that  any 
thing  that  has  not  been  introduced  into  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  is  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the 
Church.  This  appears  to  me  to  be  self-evident. 
But  the  brother  affirmed,  if  I  understood  him 
right,  that  Northern  men  were  ready  to  vote  for 
a  slaveholding  Bishop,  and  consequently  it  had 
like  to  have  become  the  usage  of  the  Church  to 
have  such  in  the  Episcopacy.  Now,  I  never  un- 
derstood from  any  Northern  man  that  he  was 
willing  to  vote  for  a  slaveholding  Bishop.  It  was 
farther  affirmed  that  it  was  only  defeated  by  trick 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  201 

and  management.  I  do  not  know  any  thing  about 
such  a  trick.  I  never  was  in  a  caucus  at  all  about 
the  nomination  of  a  Bishop.  But  I  have  heard 
from  the  mover  of  this  resolution,  that  in  1832, 
the  Baltimore  delegation  sent  a  committee  to  wait 
on  a  slaveholder  from  the  South,  and  ask  him  if 
he  V7as  willing  to  emancipate  his  slaves,  if  they 
would  nominate  him  for  the  office  of  Bishop.  He 
very  courteously,  and  in  a  Christian  spirit,  took 
time  to  deliberate,  and  eventually  told  them  he 
could  not  do  it,  and  that  w^as  the  reason  why  they 
declined  to  nominate  him.  Did  that  look  like 
nominating  a  slaveholder  to  the  Episcopacy?  And 
they  nominated  James  0.  Andrew  because  he  was 
not  a  slaveholder;  but  at  that  time  he  was  not  gen- 
erally known  to  the  General  Conference,  and  I  am 
given  to  understand  that  only  about  a  dozen  votes 
v\rere  given  him  from  the  South,  or  slaveholding 
States.  At  any  rate,  he  had  not  a  majority  of 
the  Southern  States,  and  he  could  not  have  been 
elected  without  the  votes  of  the  Northern  Confer- 
ences. So  much,  then,  as  to  the  allegation  that 
the  appointment  of  a  slaveholder  to  the  office  of 
Bishop  was  not  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the 
Church  and  to  its  principles.  We  have  been  uni- 
form on  that  subject.  Now,  sir,  I  wish  to  correct 
an  error  the  brother  from  Virginia  made  yester- 
day. He  said  that  this  originated  in  abolitionism. 
This  is  a  mistake.  It  is  the  old  Methodistic  anti» 
9* 


202  Organization  of  the 

slavery  feeling,  and  I  "would  make  no  allusion 
either  to  abolitionists  or  slaveholders.  I  love 
them  both,  God  knows  I  do.  Now,  with  respect 
to  the  propriety  of  the  resolution  before  the  Con- 
ference. I  think  there  are  many  things  that 
would  disqualify  a  man  for  holding  the  office  of 
Bishop  that  do  not  amount  to  immorality.  Sup- 
pose Bishop  Hedding  should  come  out  and  declare 
that  it  was  a  sin  to  hold  slaves  under  any  circum- 
stances. This  would  identify  him  with  the  ultra 
party,  and  I  would  vote  for  his  retiring,  because 
it  would  disqualify  him  for  his  w^ork  as  Superin- 
tendent over  the  w^hole  Church.  I  will  suppose 
another  case.  Let  one  of  our  Bishops  be  unmar- 
ried, and  go  into  the  work,  and  marry  a  free  col- 
ored woman,  would  it  not,  in  the  sense  of  the 
whole  community,  disqualify  him  for  his  office? 
And  yet  it  would  not  be  an  act  of  immorality. 
And  it  is  on  this  principle  that  I  say  Bishop  An- 
drew has  disqualified  himself  by  connecting  him- 
self with  slavery,  because  he  cannot  acceptably 
exercise  his  duties  as  a  general  officer  of  the 
Church. 

Now  the  doctrine  of  expediency  has  been  re- 
ferred to.  Let  me  give  you  one  item  of  expe- 
diency that  the  Apostle  Paul  practiced  :  "If  meat 
make  my  brother  to  offend,  I  will  eat  no  flesh 
while  the  world  standeth,  lest  I  make  my  brother 
to  offend;"  and  if  Bishop  Andrew  had  practiced 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  203 

that  kind  of  expediency  we  should  not  have  had 
the  present  difficulty.  But  his  connection  Avith 
slavery  was  "against  his  will!"  I  will  acknowl- 
edge that,  in  the  first  case,  he  had  no  agency ;  but 
will  any  one  avow  that  he  was  not  a  free  agent 
when  he  connected  himself  with  this  lady?  No 
one  will  avow  that.  He  therefore  acted  impru- 
dently. As  was  shown  by  the  brother  who  opened 
this  case,  there  is  a  marked  difference  between  an 
Elder,  a  Deacon,  and  a  Bishop.  The  office  and 
W'Ork  of  a  Bishop  are  of  a  general  character,  not 
confined  to  any  particular  place;  and  when  he 
disqualifies  himself  from  exercising  his  office  for 
the  good  of  the  whole  Church,  he  disqualifies 
himself  from  holding  that  office.  With  regard  to 
our  Southern  brethren,  I  hold  them  to  be  entitled 
to  all  the  offices  of  the  ministry,  and  never  will  I 
perform  any  act  that  will  go  to  deprive  them  of 
their  rights,  and  never  will  I  perform  an  act  that 
will  go  to  abridge  the  privileges  of  the  abolition- 
ists. I  never  did  believe,  nor  do  I  now  believe, 
that  holding  slaves  under  all  circumstances  is  a 
sin.  Others  beheve  that,  and  sincerely,  and  every 
one  knows  how  we  boldly  contended  against  such 
a  conclusion  in  the  New  York  Conference.  We 
acted  then  in  the  integrity  of  our  hearts,  and  as 
we  believed  would  be  for  the  good  of  the  Church, 
and  the  preservation  of  its  union.  I  wish,  sir,  to 
concentrate  all  my  remarks  on  this  one  point,  that 


204  Organization  of  the 

any  thing  that  would  disquahfy  a  man  for  the 
office  of  Bishop  is  fit  ground  for  the  action  of  this 
General  Conference;  and  I  say,  to  declare  that 
every  man  who  holds  a  slave  sins  in  so  doing, 
would  be  a  disqualification;  and  so  also,  that  to 
enter  upon  the  possession  of  slaves  under  the  pe- 
culiar circumstances  would  unfit  a  man  for  the 
high  office  of  a  General  Superintendent  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  We  do  not  touch 
the  moral  character  of  Bishop  Andrew  at  all.  We 
do  not  wish  to  do  it.  We  say  that  he  has  acted 
imprudently,  and  that  we  think  it  necessary  in 
view  thereof  that  he  should  resign  his  office  as  a 
Bishop.  But  while  we  thus  press  this  matter,  we 
no  less  fervently  pray  that  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church  may  overrule  all  our  deliberations  and  de- 
cisions for  the  promotion  of  his  glory  and  the  good 
of  a  lost  world. 

At  the  close  of  the  speech  delivered  by  Dr. 
Bangs,  explanations  of  a  personal  character,  in 
reference  to  the  proposed  nomination  of  Dr.  Capers 
for  the  Episcopal  office  in  1832,  were  made,  in 
which  Drs.  Capers,  Durbin,  and  Winans,  and 
Messrs.  Finley  and  Davis  took  part. 


JHf.  E.  Churchy  South.  205 


CHAPTER    III. 

Kesolution  of  James  B.  Finley — Speech  of  Dr.  Olin — 
Speech  of  Benjamin  M.  Drake — Speech  of  George  F. 
Pierce — Speech  of  Jesse  T.  Peck — Speech  of  Bishop  An- 
drew— Bishop  Soule  addresses  the  Conference — Speech  of 
Dr.  Capers — Address  from  the  Bishops — The  adoption 
of  Mr.  Finley's  Resolution. 

In  the  previous  chapter  we  have  seen  the  offi- 
cial character  of  Bishop  Andrew  arrested  by  the 
General  Conference^  and  have  noticed  the  efforts 
made  to  remove  him  from  the  Episcopal  office,  on 
the  mere  plea  of  expedienci/. 

The  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Collins,  instruct- 
ing the  Committee  on  Episcopacy  to  inquire  into 
the  facts  of  Bishop  Andrew's  connection  with 
slavery,  and  report  to  the  Conference,  was  sub- 
mitted on  the  20th  of  May.  On  the  21st  the 
committee  presented  their  report,  and,  immedi- 
ately upon  its  reading,  Mr.  Collins  "  moved  that 
the  report  be  laid  on  the  table,  to  be  taken  up  to- 
morrow as  the  special  order  of  the  day."  On  the 
following  day,  the  22d  of  the  month,  Mr,  Griffith 


206  Organization  of  the 

offered   a    resolution    "  affectionately "    requesting 
Bishop  Andrew  to  resign  the  Episcoi3al  office. 

On  the  preamble  and  resolution  of  Mr.  Griffith, 
speeches  were  delivered  by  several  of  the  most 
eminent  men  in  the  North;  to  which,  however, 
Southern  delegates  replied  in  no  unmistakable 
terms.  The  speeches  of  Drs.  Winans  and  Pierce, 
to  say  nothing  of  those  delivered  by  Stringfield 
and  Crowder,  had,  for  a  time,  arrested  the  tide 
that  threatened  to  sweep  every  thing  before  it, 
and  impressed  upon  the  minds  of  the  General  Con- 
ference the  conviction  that  even  fanaticism  could 
invent  no  plausible  excuse  for  the  adoption  of  the 
preamble  and  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Griffith. 

Dr.  Bangs  was  one  of  the  most  popular  and  in- 
fluential men  in  the  body  from  the  North,  and  his 
speech,  the  last  delivered  on  the  resolution,  failed 
to  make  any  impression  in  its  favor. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was  the  policy  of 
the  Northern  members  to  apparently  change  their 
base  of  operations.  They  abandoned  the  pream- 
ble and  resolution  that  had  been  discussed  for 
nearly  two  days,  and  substituted  it  by  the  fol- 
lowing, offered  by  James  B.  Finley,  from  Ohio : 

"  Whereas,  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids 
the  doing  any  thing  calculated  to  destroy  our  itiner- 
ant general  superintendency ;  and,  whereas.  Bishop 
Andrew  has  become  connected  with  slavery  by 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  207 

marriage  and  otherwise^  and  this  act  having  drawn 
after  it  circumstances  Avhich.  in  the  estimation  of 
the  General  Conference,  will  greatly  embarrass  the 
exercise  of  his  office  as  an  itinerant  general  super- 
intendent, if  not  in  some  places  entirely  prevent 
it;  therefore, 

'^Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General 
Conference  that  he  desist  from  the  exercise  of  this 
office  so  long  as  this  impediment  remains. 
(Signed)  J.  B.  Finley, 

J.  M.  Trimble." 

While  the  phraseology  of  the  original  preamble 
and  resolution  and  that  of  the  substitute  materially 
differ,  yet  in  their  legitimate  result  they  were  the 
same.  Neither  of  them  charged  the  Bishop  with 
the  violation  of  any  law  of  the  Church,  yet  each 
proposed  his  virtual  deposition  from  the  Episcopal 
office. 

Mr.  Finley  accompanied  his  resolution  with  a 
few  general  remarks,  after  which  Dr.  Olin  said : 

I  give  to  the  substitute  offered  by  the  venera- 
ble brother  from  Ohio  a  decided  preference  over 
the  original  resolution.  I  feel  strong  objections 
to  that  resolution,  and  no  less  to  the  preamble. 
I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  the  Discipline  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  contains,  or  is 
meant  to  contain,  any  provision  against  the  election 


208  Organization  of  the 

of  a  slaveliolding  Bishop,  nor  do  I  believe  that 
any  such  inference  is  fairly  deducible  from  it.  I 
must  hesitate,  therefore,  to  avow  such  a  doctrine. 
I  may  not  affirm  directly,  or  by  any  implication, 
that  the  Discipline  is  averse  to  the  election  of  a 
slaveholder  to  that  office.  Now,  it  seems  to  me 
that  this  idea  is  conveyed  when  it  is  said  that 
such  an  election,  or  that  the  holding  of  slaves  by 
a  Bishop,  is  contrary  to  the  "  settled  policy  and 
usage"  of  the  Church.  Since  the  organization  of 
the  federal  government  on  its  present  basis,  the 
office  of  President  has  been  occupied  during  thirty- 
five  years  by  citizens  of  Virginia,  and  forty-three 
by  slaveholders,  while  that  high  honor  has  been 
enjoyed  only  twelve  years  by  Northern  statesmen. 
Would  it  be  a  proper  use  of  language  to  say  that  it 
is  the  "  settled  policy  and  usage "  of  our  country, 
that  the  office  of  President  should  be,  for  the  most 
part,  confined  to  Southern  men?  "Usage"  car- 
ries, to  some  extent,  at  least,  the  idea  of  common 
law  and  acknowledged  right  or  privilege.  In  this 
sense  it  is  obviously  inapplicable  to  the  case  in 
hand.  We  have  hitherto  had  no  slaveholder  for 
Bishop,  not  that  we  have  a  law  against  it,  but  be- 
cause the  non-slaveholding  candidates  have  always 
received  a  majority  of  the  votes.  The  majority 
will  always  be  able  to  judge  of  what  the  interests 
or  sentiments  of  the  whole  Church  from  time  to 
time  may  demand,  and  such  a  declaration  as  that 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  209 

in  the  preamble  is  uncalled  for,  as  well  as  not 
strictly  true.  The  facts  alleged  as  the  ground  of 
the  resolution,  if  true,  are  at  least  disputable,  as 
we  have  the  best  possible  proof  in  the  discussions 
and  explanations  to  Avhich  we  have  just  listened. 
They  are  not  matters  of  record,  or  history,  or  gen- 
eral notoriety,  and  they  are  not  adapted  to  be  the 
basis  of  our  solemn  decision  in  a  case  of  such 
grave  importance. 

I  do  not  like  the  issue  to  which  that  resolution 
sought  to  lead  us.  I  do  not  wish,  by  any  act  or 
vote  of  mine,  to  say  or  insinuate  that  Bishop  An- 
drew is  not  a  most  desirable  man  for  the  Episco- 
pacy. Undoubtedly,  under  the  pressure  of  our 
difficulties,  had  he  voluntarily  come  forward  and 
done  what  the  Conference,  by  that  resolution,  ask 
him  to  do,  it  might  have  been  the  best  way  to  re- 
lieve us  from  the  embarrassment.  At  least  some 
may  think  so.  But  I  doubt  the  propriety  of  ask- 
ing him  to  do,  under  the  constraining  influence  of 
our  vote,  what,  if  done  at  all,  ought  to  be  done 
voluntarily;  for  it  might  thus  be  understood  that 
even  if  he  were  free  from  this  embarrassment,  we 
still  should  not  prefer  to  have  him  for  a  Bishop. 

I  look  upon  this  question  after  all,  not  as  a 
legal,  but  as  a  great  practical  question ;  and  my 
views  are  quite  disembarrassed  from  constitutional 
scruples  or  difficulties.  We  came  to  this  General 
Conference  from  the  North,  South,  East,  and  West, 


210  Organization  of  the 

with  the  best  dispositions  in  all  parties  to  harmonize 
as  well  as  we  might,  and  to  make  the  least  of  our 
differences.  There  were  few  symptoms  of  discon- 
tent or  disaffection,  and  it  was  generally  thought 
that  we  should  now  make  a  satisfactory  settlement 
of  our  difficulties,  and  go  home  more  harmonious 
than  ever  in  feeling  and  action.  I  had  good  rea- 
son for  coming  to  this  conclusion.  I  knew,  or 
thought  I  knew,  the  feelings  of  my  brethren  in 
the  North  and  East,  and  I  had  enjoyed  a  pretty 
free  correspondence  and  intercourse  with  brethren 
of  the  South;  and  I  am  sure  we  all  came  up  to 
this  Conference  with  the  best  purposes  and  the 
best  hopes.  I  was  ill,  and  did  not  reach  the  Con- 
ference at  the  commencement,  and  it  was  not  until 
I  had  taken  my  seat  on  this  floor,  and  heard  of 
the  difficulties  Avhich  surrounded  us,  that  my  mind 
was  robbed  of  these  hopes.  I  was  stunned  and 
overwhelmed  with  the  tidings,  and  in  ten  minutes 
made  up  my  mind  that  our  embarrassments  were 
stupendous,  if  not  insuperable.  I  have  since  made 
diligent  inquiries  from  brethren  as  to  the  actual 
condition  and  sentiments  of  the  Northern  Churches, 
and  what  would  be  the  results  there,  if  things  re- 
main as  they  are.  I  have,  for  the  most  part,  re- 
frained from'  going  to  the  men  who  have  taken 
part  in  the  controversies  that  have  agitated  us 
hitherto,  because  I  thought  their  testimony,  in  a 
case  of  this  sort,  might  not  perhaps  be  so  much 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  211 

relied  upon ;  but  I  have  addressed  my  inquiries  to 
men  whom  I  know  to  be  opponents  of  the  aboli- 
tion movement ;  and  they  concur  in  believing  that 
this  is  precisely  the  state  of  things  in  Avhich  they 
most  fear  to  return  home  to  their  flocks — and  they 
declare,  with  one  consent,  that  the  difficulty  is 
unmanageable  and  overwhelming.  I  hope  it  will 
turn  out  in  the  end  that  their  fears  outrun  the  re- 
ality. But,  I  confess,  I  know  not  where  to  look 
for  testimony  in  this  matter,  but  to  the  accredited, 
and  venerable,  and  discreet  representatives  of  the 
various  Conferences ;  and  I  repeat,  that,  forming 
my  conclusions  on  this  ground,  our  most  prudent 
men  do  regard  our  present  condition  as  pregnant 
with  danger,  and  as  threatening  manifold  disasters 
and  disaffections  throughout  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church ;  and,  after  making  what  allowance 
we  can  for  any  local  or  partial  view,  I  am  still 
compelled  to  regard  the  evil  as  a  great  and  por- 
tentous one.  It  addresses  itself  to  us  as  the  only 
tribunal  having  the  legitimate  authority  to  act  in 
the  premises. 

The  calamity  has  come  without  warning.  The 
intelligence  has  fallen  down  upon  us  like  a  thun- 
der-bolt from  a  serene  sky;  but  we  must  grapple 
with  the  difficulties.  It  is  for  this  General  Con- 
ference alone  to  dispose  of  them  in  some  way.  It 
must  be  remembered,  however,  that  this  Confer- 
ence is  limited  in  its  action  by  constitutional  re- 


212  Organization  of  the 

strictions,  which  it  may  not  transcend  for  the  re- 
moval of  the  most  ruinous  evil.  I  can  conceive 
of  questions  coming  up  here,  so  beset  with  legal 
and  constitutional  embarrassments,  that  this  Gen- 
eral Conference  could  only  weep  over  them,  and 
give  such  counsel  as  it  might  judge  proper.  If 
there  ever  was  a  question  beset  with  great  practi- 
cal difficulties,  surely  it  is  that  under  which  we 
now  groan ;  it  is  so  hedged  about  and  filled  with 
evils,  which  this  Conference  cannot  hope  to  pre- 
vent or  cure.  Yet  our  powers  are  so  great  as  to 
allow  us  to  make  some  provision  against  them,  and 
to  some  extent,  at  least,  meet  the  wants  of  the 
Church  in  this  great  emergency.  We  may  do 
much,  and  we  may  make  many  arrangements  in 
regard  to  the  Episcopacy;  but  our  powers  are  still 
limited  and  restricted  in  two  things.  We  cannot 
do  away  with  the  Episcopacy;  we  cannot  infringe 
upon  its  character  as  a  general  superintend ency. 
Within  these  limits,  it  seems  to  me,  that  we  have 
large  powers — plenary  powers  for  carrying  out 
through  the  Episcopacy  the  general  purposes  of 
the  Conference  and  the  Church.  We  may  almost 
do  what  we  will,  avoiding  to  come  in  conflict  with 
the  General  Rules,  and  the  rights  of  individuals. 
Unquestionably  the  Conference  cannot  touch  the 
ministerial  rights  of  any  one  of  its  members  or 
officers.  I  believe  we  are  all  prepared  to  recog- 
nize the  right  of  Southern  brethren  to  hold  slaves 


M.  E,  Church,  South,  213 

under  the  provisions  of  the  Discipline.  We  shall 
acknowledge  and  guarantee  the  entire  of  the  priv- 
ileges and  immunities  of  all  parties  in  the  Church. 
I  here  declare,  that  if  a  remedy  should  be  pro- 
posed that  would  trench  on  the  constitutional 
claims  of  Southern  ministers,  I  w^ould  not,  to  save 
the  Church  from  any  possible  calamity,  violate 
this  great  charter  of  our  rights.  I  am  glad  of 
the  opportunity  of  saying  that  no  man,  who  is  a 
Methodist,  and  deserves  a  place  among  us,  can 
call  in  question  here  any  rights  secured  by  our 
charter.  I  do  not  say  that  he  may  not  be  a  very 
honest,  or  a  very  pious  man,  who  doubts  the  com- 
patibility of  slaveholding,  on  the  conditions  of  the 
Discipline,  with  the  ministerial  office;  but  in  this 
he  is  not  a  Methodist.  He  may  be  a  very  good 
man,  but  a  very  had  Methodist;  and  if  such  a 
man  doubts  if  the  Church  will  reform,  or  is  too  im- 
patient of  delay,  let  him,  as  I  would  in  his  place, 
do  as  our  friends  in  New  England  did  last  year, 
go  to  some  other  Church,  or  set  up  one  for  him- 
self. 

Not  only  is  holding  slaves,  on  the  conditions 
and  under  the  restrictions  of  the  Discipline,  no 
disqualification  for  the  ministerial  office ;  but  I 
will  go  a  little  farther,  and  say  that  slaveholding 
is  not  constitutionally  a  forfeiture  of  a  man's  right, 
if  he  may  be  said  to  have  one,  to  the  office  of  a 
Bishop.     The  Church,  spread  out  through  all  the 


214  Organkaiion  of  the 

land,  "will  always  determine  for  itself  what  are 
disqualifications  and  what  are  not,  and  it  has  a 
perfect  right  to  determine  whether  slaveholding, 
or  abolitionism,  or  any  other  fact,  shall  be  taken 
into  consideration  in  its  elections. 

These  are  my  principles.  I  have  never  doubted 
with  regard  to  them.  I  will  add,  that  I  can  never 
give  a  vote  which  does  violence  to  my  sentiments 
in  regard  to  the  religious  aspect  of  the  subject. 
I  here  declare  that,  if  I  ever  saw  the  graces  of 
the  Christian  ministry  displayed,  or  its  virtues  de- 
veloped, it  has  been  among  slaveholders.  I  wdsh 
here  to  divest  myself  of  what,  to  some,  may  seem 
an  advantage  that  does  not  belong  to  me.  I  will 
not  conceal — I  avow^  that  I  was  a  slaveholder,  and 
a  minister  at  the  South,  and  I  never  dreamed  that 
my  right  to  the  ministry  was  questionable,  or  that 
in  the  sight  of  God  I  was  less  fitted  to  preach  the 
gospel  on  that  account.  And  if  the  state  of  my 
health  had  not  driven  me  away  from  that  region, 
I  should  probably  have  been  a  slaveholder  to  this 
day.  In  this  day  of  reform,  and  manifold  sugges- 
tions, I  go  farther,  and  say,  that  if  by  a  vote  of 
this  General  Conference,  you  might  call  in  ques- 
tion the  right  of  our  Southern  brethren  to  the  min- 
istry, and  make  their  claim  to  the  sacred  office  de- 
pendent on  their  giving  immediate  freedom  to 
their  slaves,  I  do  not  think  that  that  would  be  a 
blessing  to  the  slaves,  or  to  the  Church.     I  do 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  215 

not  believe  the  slave  fares  worse  for  having  a 
Christian  master,  and  I  think  the  preachers  may 
have  more  of  public  confidence  on  our  present  plan. 
I  know  these  opinions  may,  by  some,  be  regarded 
as  unsound,  and  I  make  them  not  because  they 
have  any  special  value  or  novelty,  but  because  I 
j)rofess  to  speak  my  sentiments  freely. 

With  regard  to  the  particular  case  before  us,  I 
feel  constrained  to  make  one  or  two  remarks.  If 
ever  there  was  a  man  worthy  to  fill  the  Episcopal 
office  by  his  disinterestedness,  his  love  of  the 
Church,  his  ardent,  melting  sympathy  for  all  the 
interests  of  humanity,  but,  above  all,  for  his  un- 
compromising and  unreserved  advocacy  of  the  in- 
terest of  the  slave — if  these  are  qualifications  for 
the  office  of  a  Bishop,  then  James  0.  Andrew  is 
preeminently  fitted  to  hold  that  office.  I  know 
him  well.  He  was  the  friend  of  my  youth,  and 
although  by  his  experience  and  his  position  fitted 
to  be  a  father,  yet  he  made  me  a  brother,  and  no 
man  has  more  fully  shared  my  sympathies,  or  more 
intimately  known  my  heart,  for  these  twenty  years. 
His  house  has  been  my  home;  on  his  bed  have  I 
lain  in  sickness,  and  he,  with  his  sainted  wife  now 
in  heaven,  has  been  my  comforter  and  nurse.  No 
question  under  heaven  could  have  presented  itself 
so  painfully  oppressive  to  my  feelings  as  the  one 
now  before  us.  If  I  had  a  hundred  votes,  and 
Bishop  Andrew  were  not  pressed  by  the  difficul- 


Sl< 


^^^^W^WW^^W^W    V'     fffP 


1i^  whiol;  flow  iT>^i  upon  hu»\.  without  nTi\  \vroT»c: 
int(»utiai\  on  hbi  pwvt  1  mix  j*i«*o,  Ire  i>«  iire  ?n»n  to 
wham  1  wmild  ^i\'e  thorn  all.  1  icnow  no  niun 
l^ho  h»,v  h<>t>n5^  hold  an  ^dvonftt^  iVu*  t4i^  intoivsts 
of  the  ^nv^ ;  and  wi»nn  I  h*i\'e  he<>n  coRstTwuKwl 
to  4*e^*iWR  iVom  suyuw!:  whw^t  |Kxt' hnp  I  j^hmUd  h«  xt 

$iM4,  1  ^«V'P   liet^*(i    ^m  l^t    nnTYVT--rnrv^t4ii^,  HiR^    oft 

othet'  |Hihlic   o»^r'jTSTnn5;    rrJ  ^    oft  |tt«Jito\*s 

%^  j*^  to  the   >-;  f^mnn^nr]    TtTtf<l*f>slh<  of 

their  5tk\'c^  US?  ft  Hkfh  Ol  'Of>tift|5: 

one  honot*ed  hrothf4\  w^oj*e  niw»e  wUI  horei^fM-  be 
)*eco)^d  li>?  ofte  of  the  |!!i'efttest  howofifotoi^  rf  t^h^ 
AlVi(>H4i  ^^co,  1  know  of  <io  :nii*ft  w^ho  hir?j  done  3*^ 
Hiuoh  foi-  the  ^ikX'e  li,s  lifeih<^  Andl*e^W.  1  kftO^W^ 
^,  1  i»ni  «ot  sfoi^kinfr  to  the  m.  Hut  1  lOft 

^stfttii^  f»icts-=4H0ts  w'^ioh  1  wft  j*«^  win  iteni 
b)*^tb)*eii  to  4*ct  with  (?iMitJoft  and  tondo^*ft**ss  ift  tto; 

husiiu>ss 

Ti    will   b^  re.Mdih    inf\vn*e4.   tVow  Axhid    1    hft\^ 
^4,tlui4  ifw^  oimnol  4*  imc  iw  qne^ 

tiott  the  wbts  of  thi^  So.  >.  i;  }r,oihi*pi\.  wt^  >i;?rl 
be>tteV.  ift  ft  '  vt  ^<>i  lUl.  far  1    holievr  tI 

^»owl4  K  1»  it  1*  the  4;irnHh»sl  mU«4Tu- 

tiei^  thWi  intnnp^  upon  oifl'  OWtt  nOns4if47tioft .  Tel 
&  «?oms  to  me  th«t  1^^  w^  nol  jihwl  -  '  ^woh  « 
dfeU8tl*o«^  oow4*5m,  iwd  thM  1^^  *hJ  -  .we  of 

tiii^  OsRse  nji  to  esp?  V  h^th  the^  *  ^f' 

C*ififtot|>nr  Tv:V      1  .    nol  vote  t 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  217 

that  confessedly  belong  to  the  General  Conference, 
I  trust  some  measure  may  be  adopted  that  may 
greatly  palliate  and  diminish,  if  it  cannot  wholly 
avert,  the  dangers  that  threaten  us.  The  substitute 
now  proposed  I  regard  as  such  a  measure.  In  it 
this  General  Conference  expresses  its  wish  and  will 
that,  under  existing  circumstances — meaning,  by 
that  word,  not  merely  the  flict  that  Bishop  An- 
drew has  become  a  slaveholder,  but  the  state  of 
the  Church,  the  sentiments  that  prevail — the  ex- 
citement, and  the  deep  feeling  of  the  people  on 
the  subject — feeling,  it  may  be,  which  disqualifies 
them  for  calm,  dispassionate  views  in  the  premises 
— that,  under  these  circumstances,  it  is  the  wish 
and  will  of  the  brethren  of  this  Conference  that 
Bishop  Andrew,  against  whom  we  bring  no  charge, 
on  whose  fair  character  we  fiK  no  reproach,  should, 
for  the  present,  refrain  from  the  exercise  of  his 
Episcopal  functions.  This  resolution  proposes  no 
punishment.  It  does  not  censure.  It  expresses 
no  opinion  of  the  Bishop's  conduct.  It  only  seeks 
to  avert  disastrous  results  by  the  exercise  of  the 
conservative,  of  the  self-preserving,  powers  of  this 
Conference. 

If  the  brethren  who  occupy  the  extreme  posi- 
tions in  this  question  seek  rather  to  allay  than  ex- 
cite the  fever  of  feeling,  we  will  yet  hope — even 
allow  me  to  believe — that  these  difficulties  may  be 
removed.  I  liad  even  thought,  if  we  could  so 
10 


218  Organization  of  the 

manage  this  question  as  to  avoid  casting  any  re- 
flections upon  the  South ;  if  we  could  hold  Bishop 
Andrew  without  an  impeachment ;  if  we  are  care- 
ful to  save  that  point  as  far  as  possible,  I  have 
confidence  that,  whenever  he  believes  he  can  do  it 
without  compromising  a  principle  which  I  know, 
in  the  present  situation,  he  feels  himself  called 
upon  to  represent  and  maintain — if  we  could  save 
that  point,  and  hold  up  a  shield  over  the  interests 
dearer  to  him  and  others  than  his  own  life  even — 
I  do  not  allow  myself  to  despair  that,  as  soon  as 
circumstances  will  allow,  and  difficulties,  now  in- 
superable, shall  be  removed,  he  will  be  ready  to 
make  great  sacrifices  for  the  general  good  of  the 
Church.  I  have  no  right  to  say  so.  I  only  give 
it  as  my  conviction,  that  if  he  can  possibly  relieve 
us.  of  our  embarrassment  he  will.  My  confidence 
in  the  m^an  is  such,  that  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
asserting  this.  I  look  at  this  proposition  not  as  a 
punishment  of  any  grade  or  sort.  It  is  as  if  you 
were  to  say  to  Dr.  Peck,  your  editor,  who,  for 
some  cause,  might  have  become  unpopular,  "You 
are  our  agent.  Circumstances,  at  present,  are  un- 
favorable to  your  exercising  your  functions ;  and 
in  the  exertion  of  our  just  discretion  in  the  case, 
and  because  your  want  of  favor  with  the  public 
interferes  with  the  success  of  that  department 
over  which  you  are  placed,  we  withdraw  you,  for 
the  present,  from  this  particular  field  of  duty.    Wc 


Jf.  E,  Church,  South,  219 

do  not  censure  yon^  and  we  cordially  retain  you 
in  the  ranks  of  our  ministry."  I  am  not  learned 
in  constitutional  law.  It  is,  perhaps,  for  want  of 
larger  experience  that  this  is  the  only  view  I  am 
able  to  take  of  this  subject ;  at  which,  however,  I 
think  1  have  arrived  by  a  course,  I  Avill  not  say 
of  sound  argument,  but  by  natural  and  easy  ap- 
proaches. With  my  constitutional  views,  I  am 
allowed  to  inquire  in  this  case  which  course  will 
do  the  least  harm  ?  And  I  believe  that  which  is 
proposed  by  this  substitute  to  be  a  constitutional 
measure,  dishonorable  to  none,  unjust  to  none.  As 
such  I  should  wish  it  to  go  forth,  with  the  solemn 
declaration  of  this  General  Conference  that  we  do 
not  design  it  as  a  punishment,  or  a  censure ;  that 
it  is,  in  our  apprehension,  only  a  prudential  and 
expedient  measure,  calculated  to  avert  the  great 
evils  that  threaten  us. 

I  know  the  difficulties  of  the  South.  I  know 
the  excitement  that  is  likely  to  prevail  among  the 
people  there.  Yet,  allowing  our  worst  fears  all  to 
be  realized,  the  South  will  have  this  advantage 
over  us — the  Southern  Conferences  are  likely,  in 
any  event,  to  harmonize  among  themselves — they 
wdll  form  a  compact  body.  In  our  Northern  Con- 
ferences this  will  be  impossible  in  the  present  state 
of  things.  They  cannot  bring  their  whole  people 
to  act  together  on  one  common  ground;  stations 
and  circuits  will  be  so  weakened  and  broken  as 


220  Organkation  of  the 

in  many  instances  to  be  unable  to  sustain  their 
ministry.  I  speak  on  this  point  in  accordance  with 
the  conviction  of  my  own  judgment,  after  having 
traveled  three  thousand  miles  through  the  New 
En2:land  and  New  York  Conferences,  that  if  some 
action  is  not  had  on  this  subject  calculated  to  hold 
out  hope — to  impart  a  measure  of  satisfaction  to 
the  people — there  will  be  distractions  and  divis- 
ions ruinous  to  souls,  and  fatal  to  the  permanent 
interests  of  the  Church. 

I  feel,  sir,  that  if  this  great  difficulty  shall  re- 
sult in  separation  from  our  Southern  brethren,  we 
lose  not  our  right  hand  merely,  but  our  very  heart's 
blood.  Over  such  an  event  I  should  not  cease  to 
pour  out  my  prayers  and  tears  as  over  a  grievous 
and  unmitigated  calamity.  It  was  in  that  part  of 
our  Zion  that  God,  for  Christ's  sake,  converted  my 
soul.  There  I  first  entered  on  the  Christian  min- 
istry. From  thence  come  the  beloved,  honored 
brethren  who  now  surround  me,  with  whom  and 
among  whom  I  have  labored,  and  suffered,  and  re- 
joiced, and  seen  the  doings  of  the  right  hand  of 
the  Son  of  God.  If  the  day  shall  come  when  we 
must  be  separated  by  lines  of  demarkation,  I  shall 
yet  think  often  of  those  beyond  with  the  kindest, 
warmest  feelinsrs  of  an  honest  Christian  heart. 
But,  sir,  I  will  yet  trust  that  we  may  put  far  off 
this  evil  day.  If  we  can  pass  such  a  measure  as 
wnll  shield  our  principles  from  all  infrinefement — 


31.  E,  Church,  South.  221 

if  we  can  send  forth  such  a  measure  as  will  neither 
injure  nor  justly  offend  the  South — as  shall  neither 
censure  nor  dishonor  Bishop  Andrew,  and  yet 
shall  meet  the  pressing  wants  of  .the  Church  ;  and, 
above  all,  if  Almighty  God  shall  be  pleased  to 
help  by  pouring  out  his  Spirit  upon  us,  we  may 
yet  avoid  the  rock  on  which  we  now  seem  but 
too  likely  to  split. 

I  will  add  one  word  in  reference  to  what  has 
been  so  often  repeated  about  the  abolition  excite- 
ment in  New  England  and  the  North.  I  have 
never  thought  it  a  good  thing  to  introduce  agita- 
tion into  the  Church.  I  have  thought  it  better, 
so  far  as  practicable,  to  keep  clear  from  all  contro- 
versies, and,  for  myself,  have  felt  bound  to  do  so. 
I  have  been  kept  from  taking  any  part  in  the  great 
abolition  controversy  by  the  arrangements  of  Prov- 
idence; but  I  must  declare  that  the  interests,  the 
purposes,  the  measures,  which  seem  at  this  time 
to  unite  the  North  in  sympathy,  have  not  origi- 
nated with  abolitionists,  usually  so  called.  The 
concern  felt  on  the  subject  now  before  us  is  much 
more  general.  The  New  York  Conference,  of 
which  I  was  made  a  member  when  abroad,  and 
without  my  knowledge,  was  never  an  abolition 
Conference.  Some  of  my  friends,  members  of  that 
Conference,  and  themselves  decided  abolitionists, 
have  complained  to  me  of  the  action  of  that  body 
in  suspending  some  young  preachers  for  their  ac- 


222  Organization  of  the 

tivity  in  the  abolition  cause,  as  flagrantly  tyran- 
nical and  unjust.  The  Troy  Conference  is  not  an 
abolition  Conference,  and  never  was.  These,  and 
other  Northern  Conferences,  have  firmly  opposed 
the  abolition  movement.  They  have  been  as  a 
wall  of  brass  to  turn  back  the  strong  tide,  and  pro- 
tect the  Southern  rights  and  interests. 

Ministers  and  laymen,  in  some  portions  of  our 
work,  have  agitated  this  question  in  their  Confer- 
ences and  Churches,  but  generally  Northern  Meth- 
odists have  been  opposed  to  such  action.  They 
commonly  regard  slavery  a  great  evil,  though  not 
necessarily  a  sin ;  but  it  would  be  a  great  mistake 
to  conclude  that  the  antislavery  sentiments  of 
Methodists  have  been  wholly,  or  mostly,  the  fruits 
of  Church-action  or  agitation.  Brethren  fall  into 
a  great  error  in  imagining  that  all  the  abolition  in- 
fluences abroad  in  the  Northern  Churches  origi- 
nated in  them.  On  the  contrary,  our  common 
newspapers,  the  contests  and  canvassings  con« 
nected  with  our  elections,  our  periodical  literature, 
are  rife  with  abolitionism  on  other  and  broader 
grounds.  It  is,  perhaps,  to  be  regretted  that  this 
embarrassing  subject  is  so  much  discussed  at  the 
North;  but  it  is  certainly  true  that  Methodists 
here  derive  their  sentiments  chiefly  from  such 
sources  as  I  have  intimated — from  their  reading, 
and  from  intercourse  with  their  fellow-citizens. 
They  are  abolitionists  naturally  and  inevitably, 


3L  E,  Church,  South.  223 

because  they  breathe  the  atmosphere  of  this  coun- 
try— because  the  sea  is  open  to  free  adventure, 
and  their  freighted  ships  bring  home  periodicals 
and  books  from  all  the  countries  of  Europe,  tinged, 
or,  if  any  prefer,  infected  with  these  views.  The 
difficulties  of  this  question,  then,  do  not  arise 
chiefly  from  its  relation  to  abolitionism  in  the 
Church,  but  from  the  general  tone  of  feeling 
among  the  people  of  the  non-slaveholding  States. 
I  trust,  sir,  that  in  pronouncing  our  sentiments  on 
the  subject  under  consideration,  we  shall  not  re- 
gard ourselves  as  acting  for  distinct  and  antagonist 
interests — that  we  shall  not  inquire  whether  we 
may  inflict  an  injury  upon  one  portion  of  the 
Church  regarded  by  itself,  and  no  doubt  justly,  as 
ever  mindful  of  its  constitutional  obligations,  to 
save  another  portion  from  evils  engendered  in  the 
hot-beds  of  abolitionism — a  part  of  the  Church 
ever  ready  to  trample  down  constitutional  barriers, 
and  remove  old  landmarks  and  securities. 

That  is  not  the  true  issue;  for  in  four-fifths  of 
the  antislavery  Conferences,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
rest,  there  have  been  no  agitations,  no  seeds  of 
abolition  sown,  but  the  people  have  formed  their 
opinions  as  citizens  of  the  country;  and  notwith- 
standing these  convictions  on  the  subject,  they 
have  as  tender  a  regard  for  the  interests  of  the 
Church  as  any  of  their  brethren.  As  a  member 
of  the  New  York  Conference,  I  do  most  earnestly 


224  Organization  of  the 

protest  against  any  declaration  which  shall  go  forth 
before  the  world,  affirming  or  intimating  that  the 
New  York  Conference,  as  such,  has  at  all  meddled 
in  this  matter,  except  to  prevent  apprehended  evil, 
and  to  perform  what  it  regarded  as  a  pressing, 
though  painful,  duty  to  the  whole  Church.  I  will 
only  say  farther,  that  in  our  action  in  the  case  of 
a  venerable  and  beloved  Bishop,  we  have  trouble 
and  sorrow  enough  heaped  upon  us — Pelion  on 
Ossa — afflictions  on  affliction.  Let  not,  then,. this 
drop  of  bitterness  be  wrung  into  the  cup  which 
we  are  compelled  to  drink.  Let  it  not  be  said 
that  we  are  groaning  under  the  pressure  of  diffi- 
culties arising  from  an  agitation  which  we  have 
got  up  and  cannot  now  allay.  Let  it  not  be  said 
that  we  are  now  suffering  the  consequences  of  our 
unconstitutional  meddling  with  the  subject  of 
slavery — that  the  seed  sown  by  us  has  sprung  up, 
and  we  are  now  reaping  the  harvest.  As  a  dele- 
gate from  the  New  York  Conference,  I  sympathize 
with  its  honor ;  and  I  declare,  before  heaven  and 
earth,  that  it  is  no  fjiult  of  that  body  of  ministers 
that  we  are  now  pressed  down  with  such  a  bur- 
den of  difficulties.  Sir,  there  are  men  in  this  Con- 
ference who  have  suffered  much  in  vindicating 
what  they  regarded  the  rights  of  the  South,  My 
venerable  friend  on  the  right  has,  on  this  account, 
received  great  and  unmerited  obloquy.  Another 
excellent  minister  on  my  left,  and  man}''  more  not 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  225 

now  in  my  eye,  have  been  reproached  as  pro- 
slavery  men  and  men-stealers  for  the  part  they 
thought  it  their  duty  to  take  against  the  ultra 
views  and  measures  that  threatened  to  prevail  a 
few  years  ago.  They  have  deserved  well — I  think 
they  have  merited  the  thanks — of  Southern  breth- 
ren for  their  earnest  efforts  to  shield  them  and 
their  rights  against  encroachments  on  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Church.  Sir,  I  have  done.  I  do 
not  pretend  to  have  succeeded  in  making  a  consti- 
tutional argument.  My  object  was  to  do  my  duty 
in  stating,  as  well  as  I  was  able,  the  just  and 
proper  grounds  of  the  proposed  resolution. 

In  this  remarkable  speech.  Dr.  Olin  conceded 
every  thing  demanded  by  the  South,  with  the  ex- 
ception that  violent  hands  should  not  be  laid  on 
Bishop  Andrew.  He  admitted  "that  the  Disci- 
pline of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  contains" 
no  "  provision  against  the  election  of  a  slavehold- 
ing  Bishop ;"  "  that  Bishop  Andrew  was  a  most 
desirable  man  for  the  Episcopacy;"  "  that  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  was  limited  in  its  action  by  con- 
stitutional restrictions  which  it  may  not  transcend ;" 
"  that  if  a  remedy  should  be  proposed  that  would 
trench  on  the  constitutional  claims  of  Southern 
ministers,"  he  "would  not,  to  save  the  Church 
from  any  possible  calamity,  violate  this  great  char- 
ter of  our  rights."  He  farther  says,  "  Not  only 
10* 


226  Organization  of  the 

is  holding  slaves,  on  the  conditions  and  under  the 
restrictions  of  the  Discipline,  no  disqualification 
for  the  ministerial  office,"  and  adds,  "  but  I  will  go 
a  little  farther,  and  say  that  slaveholding  is  not 
constitutionally  a  forfeiture  of  a  man's  right,  if  he 
may  be  said  to  have  one,  to  the  office  of  a  Bishop." 
His  speech  abounds  in  expressions  and  sentiments 
similar  to  these. 

With  the  expression  of  these  views,  however, 
Dr.  Olin  avowed  his  purpose  to  support  the.  reso- 
lution of  Mr.  Finley,  and  offers  as  his  reason  for 
so  doing  that,  "in  it  this  General  Conference  ex- 
presses its  w^ish  and  w^ill  that  under  existing  cir- 
cumstances— meaning  by  that  word,  not  merely 
the  fact  that  Bishop  Andrew  has  become  a  slave- 
holder, but  the  state  of  the  Church,  the  sentiments 
that  prevail,  the  excitement  and  the  deep  feeling 
on  the  subject — feeling,  it  may  be,  which  disquali- 
fies them  for  calm,  dispassionate  views  in  the 
premises — that  under  these  circumstances  it  is  the 
wish  and  will  of  the  brethren  of  this  Conference 
that  Bishop  Andrew,  against  whom  w^e  bring  no 
charge,  on  whose  fair  character  we  fix  no  reproach, 
should,  for  the  present,  refrain  from  the  exercise 
of  his  Episcopal  functions." 

We  are  unable  to  reconcile  the  two  opposite 
positions  taken  by  Dr.  Ohn  in  this  speech,  unless 
it  be  that  he  entertained  the  belief  that  the  divis- 
ion of  the  Church  w\as  an  absolute  necessity  for 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  227 

the  success  of  Methodism  in  the  North  as  well  as 
the  South. 

Dr.  Olin  was  followed  by  Benjamin  M.  Drake, 
from  Mississippi. 

He  thought  that  in  no  vital  principle  did  the 
substitute  differ  from  the  original  resolution,  though 
in  the  preamble  he  thought  it  preferable.  But  he 
could  not  see  the  difference  between  the  Bishop's 
resigning  his  office,  and  refraining  from  the  exer- 
cise of  its  functions,  especially  as  his  circum- 
stances are  such  as  he  has  no  control  over,  and 
therefore  the  request  contemplated  would  be  equiv- 
alent to  a  request  to  resign,  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses. 

To  say  that  we  can  deprive  a  Bishop  of  his 
office,  and  yet  not  censure  him — to  say  that  we 
can  depose,  and  yet  leave  his  Episcopal  robe  un- 
stained— ^is,  to  my  mind,  absurd  in  the  extreme. 
Sir,  we  cannot  pass  this  resolution  without  hang- 
ing up  Bishop  Andrew  before  the  whole  Church 
as  having  committed  a  sin  either  against  Method- 
ism or  against  Christ !  And  against  which  has  he 
sinned  ?  Now,  according  to  the  exposition  of  the 
last  speaker,  he  has  not  sinned  against  Methodism, 
and  I  have  yet  to  hear  that  he  has  sinned  against 
Christianity;  so  that,  according  to  their  own  show- 
ing, they  cannot  punish  him  without  committing 
an  extrajudicial  act.  Nor  can  this  course  be  pur- 
sued, and  the  union  of  the  Church  be  preserved. 


228  Organization  of  the 

Bishop  Andrew  must  be  continued  in  the  Episco- 
pal office,  or  you  certainly  divide  the  Church. 

Henry  Slicer,  of  the  Baltimore,  Phineas  Cran- 
dall,  of  the  New  England,  and  William  D.  Cass, 
of  the  New  Hampshire  Conference,  "were  the  next 
speakers,  all  of  them  supporting  the  substitute. 

The  speech  of  Mr.  Cass  was  distinguished  for 
nothing,  except  its  extreme  ultraism  and  bitter- 
ness. 

On  Friday  morning,  May  the  24th,  Bishop 
Waugh  was  in  the  chair,  and  the  religious  services 
were  conducted  by  Samuel  Dunwody,  of  South 
Carolina.  The  preliminary  business  being  fin- 
ished, the  order  of  the  day  (Finley's  substitute) 
was  resumed.  Mr.  Cass  had  not  finished  his 
speech  the  day  previous,  when  the  hour  of  ad- 
journment arrived,  and  his  right  to  the  floor  was 
consequently  recognized  by  the  chair.  He,  how- 
ever, waived  his  privilege,  remarking  that  "  he  had 
been  interrupted  in  his  speech  the  day  before,  and 
his  rights  had  been  trampled  upon,  and  he  had  no 
farther  speech  to  make." 

George  F.  Pierce,  of  Georgia,  follov/ed  Mr. 
Cass.  Mr.  Pierce  was  a  young  man,  being  only 
thirty-three  years  of  age.  This  was  the  second 
General  Conference  of  which  he  had  been  a  mem- 
ber. Before  Mr.  Pierce  was  born  his  father  was 
a  Methodist  preacher.  Brought  up  in  the  lap  of 
Methodism,  in  the  sixteenth  year  of  his  age  he 


31.  E,  Church,  South,  229 

was  soundly  converted  to  God.  He  loved  its  doc- 
trines and  was  devoted  to  its  usages.  Divinely 
called  to  the  work  of  the  Christian  ministry,  before 
he  was  twenty  years  old  he  entered  the  itinerant 
ranks,  and  pledged  to  the  prosecution  of  his  high 
and  holy  calling  his  youth,  his  manhood,  and  his 
declining  years.  His  first  field  of  labor  was  the 
Alcovie  Circuit,  with  Jeremiah  Freeman  in  charge. 
His  second  appointment  was  to  the  city  of  Au- 
gusta, as  the  colleague  of  James  0.  Andrew.* 
Having  in  the  early  part  of  his  ministry  been 
associated  with  Mr.  Andrew,  he  had  formed  an 
attachment  for  him  that  had  increased  with  each 
successive  year.  His  popularity  in  the  Georgia 
Conference  had  placed  him  in  the  front  ranks  of 
his  delegation,  while  his  brilliant  talents,  his  burn- 
ing eloquence,  his  spotless  character,  his  uncom- 
promising devotion  to  the  Church,  and  his  fervent 
zeal,  which  knew  no  bounds  save  his  wasting 
strength,  rendered  him  a  universal  favorite  in  the 
South.  As  a  preacher,  if  he  had  a  peer,  he  had  no 
superior,  in  the  Church.  His  appearance  on  the 
floor  of  the  General  Conference,  in  opposition  to  the 
substitute  of  Mr.  Finley,  was  expected.     He  said : 

I  speak  from  convictions  of  duty,  and  not  be- 
cause I  expect  to  change  the  opinion  of  any  man 

*It  was  during  this  year  that  Mr.  Andrew  was  elected  to 
the  Episcopal  office. 


230  Organization  of  the 

before  us;  nor  would  I  presume,  as  some  have 
done,  that  there  will  be  in  the  course  of  my  re- 
marks the  evolutions  of  any  new  light.  I  do  not, 
sir,  feel  a  great  deal  of  solicitude  about  the  issue 
of  the  case,  and  my  solicitude  is  diminished,  be- 
cause I  regard  the  great  question  of  unity  as  set- 
tled by  the  previous  action  of  the  Conference  in 
another  case;  but  I  desire  to  animadvert  very 
briefly  on  one  or  two  points,  as  connected  with 
the  manner  in  which  the  question  has  been  con- 
sidered. 

The  brethren  who  have  spoken  on  the  other 
side  of  the  question,  many  of  them,  have  adopted 
a  trick  of  oratory — a  sort  of  legerdemain  in  de- 
bate, which  is  this :  they  state  abstract  propositions 
of  right,  which  no  man  will  pretend  to  deny,  and 
then  deduce  elaborate  argumentations,  and  make 
them  to  bear  on  conclusions  with  which  these  con- 
clusions have  no  more  to  do  than  the  law  of  the 
tides  has  with  the  polar  star.  But  the  design  is 
very  obvious.  The  idea  is  more  readily  adopted 
— the  conviction  more  readily  embraced  —  be- 
cause it  falls  in  with  preconceived  opinions  and 
long-established  prejudices.  There  is  no  logical 
connection  between  the  premises  and  the  argu- 
ments which  have  been  advanced  here.  Things 
are  put  in  apposition  which  have  no  relation  to 
each  other.  Sir,  there  has  been,  in  every  speech 
which  has  been  made  on  the  other  side  of  the 


3f.  E,  Church,  South.  231 

question,  a  false  issue  attempted.  Whatever  may 
be  affirmed  of  expediency,  and  the  disquahfication 
of  Bishop  Andrew  for  the  office  of  General  Su- 
perintendent, in  view  of  circumstances  over  which 
it  is  declared  brethren  have  no  control,  it  is  not  to 
be  forgotten  or  disguised  that  this  is  not  an  ab- 
stract, but  a  practical  question,  that  it  involves 
the  constitutional  rights  and  equality  of  privileges 
belonging  to  Southern  ministers.  It  is  a  practical 
question,  too,  which  camiot  be  set  off  from  its 
connection  with  the  past,  and  its  bearings  on  the 
future.  It  is  part  and  parcel  of  a  system,  slowdy 
developed,  it  may  be,  yet  obvious  in  its  designs 
and  unwearied  in  its  operation,  to  deprive  South- 
ern ministers  of  their  rights,  and  to  disfranchise 
the  whole  Southern  Church.  You  cannot  take  the 
question  out  of  its  relations.  It  cannot  be  made 
to  stand  as  brethren  have  tried  to  make  it  stand, 
isolated  and  alone.  If  there  had  been  no  memo- 
rials on  your  table,  praying  for  the  establishment 
of  a  law  of  proscription — if  there  had  not  been 
declared,  over  and  over  again,  a  settled  purpose, 
if  not  in  unequivocal  terms,  yet  in  unequivocal 
acts,  to  w^ork  out  the  destruction  of  this  evil,  and 
free  the  Episcopacy  and  the  Church  itself  from 
this  evil,  the  question  before  us  would  be  different 
in  its  aspects,  and  the  action  of  the  South  in  re- 
gard to  it  might  be  modified  accordingly.  I  beg 
this  Conference  to  consider  this  question  in  the 


232  Organization  of  the 

light  of  its  connection  with  the  previous  action  in 
the  case  of  the  appeal  from  the  Baltimore  Confer- 
ence. Sir,  the  preposterous  doctrine  was  asserted 
in  that  Conference,  that  its  purposes  and  usages 
are  paramount  to  the  law  of  the  land,  and  the 
doctrine  of  that  Conference  has  been  affirmed 
here.  Sir,  the  action  of  this  Conference  on  the 
subject  has  brought  the  whole  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  into  a  position  of  antagonism  to  the 
laws  of  the  land.  I  consider  such  action  not  only 
an  outrage  on  the  common  justice  of  the  case,  but 
decidedly  revolutionary  in  its  movements,  and 
destined  to  affect,  unless  repealed,  the  character 
of  the  Conference  and  all  the  ramifications  of  the 
Church.  What  is  the  position?  The  ground  was 
taken  there  and  here — the  Church,  the  Bible,  the 
Disciphne,  and  the  laws  of  the  land  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding — that  we  have  a  right  to 
make  a  man's  membership  depend  upon  the  condi- 
tion of  his  doing  a  thing  which,  as  a  citizen  of  the 
State,  he  has  no  power  or  right  to  do.  The  act 
which  is  proposed  in  the  resolution  is  part  and 
parcel  with  the  same  affair.  When  Bishop  An- 
drew has  been  invited  to  resign  or  desist  from  the 
exercise  of  his  official  functions,  or  is  impeached, 
or  deposed,  it  ought  to  be,  and  can  be,  considered 
as  neither  more  nor  less  than  collateral  in  its  de- 
signs and  effects  with  the  action  of  the  Conference 
in  the  case  to  which  I  have  referred.     This  is  a 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  233 

practical  question,  make  what  disclaimers  you 
please,  or  any  amount  of  them.  The  common 
sense  of  the  country  will  consider  it  as  an  infrac- 
tion of  the  constitutional,  or,  if  you  please,  the  dis- 
ciplinary rights  of  the  Southern  brethren,  however 
it  may  be  considered  by  those  in  the  so-styled  more 
favored  and  less-incumbered  portions  of  the  Union. 
The  argument  for  expediency  I  am  compelled 
to  believe  has  not  half  the  force  assigned  to  it.  I 
think  I  speak  advisedly  when  I  say,  that  what- 
ever effect  the  passing  of  Bishop  Andrew's  char- 
acter without  censure,  or  laying  the  w^hole  busi- 
ness on  the  table,  might  have  with  the  New 
England  Conferences,  I  am  not  prepared  to  be- 
lieve that  any  considerable  damage  would  be 
done  in  the  middle  Conferences.  I  do  not  be- 
lieve the  people  of  New  York  would  decline  to 
receive  Bishop  Andrew  for  their  Bishop.  I  do 
not  believe  that  he  would  be  objected  to  either  in 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  or  Maryland,  or  in 
any  of  the  Conferences  of  the  Western  States. 
The  difficulties  are  wdth  the  New  Englanders. 
They  are  making  all  this  difficulty,  and  may  be 
described,  in  the  language  of  Paul,  as  "intermed- 
dlers  with  other  men's  matters."  I  will  allow,  as 
it  has  been  affirmed,  again  and  again,  that  there 
may  be  secession.  Societies  broken  up.  Confer- 
ences split,  and  immense  damage  of  this  sort  be 
done  within  the  New  England  Conferences 3  but 


234  Organization  of  the 

>;vhat  then?  I  speak  soberly,  advisedly,  when  I 
say,  I  prefer  that  all  New  England  should  secede, 
or  be  set  off,  and  have  her  share  of  the  Church 
property.  I  infinitely  prefer  that  they  should  go 
rather  than  that  this  General  Conference  should 
proceed  to  make  this  ruthless  invasion  upon  the 
Connectional  union,  and  the  integrity  of  the 
Church.  Let  Xew  England  go,  with  all  my  heart. 
She  has  been  for  the  last  twenty  years  a  thorn  in 
the  flesh — a  messenger  of  Satan  to  buffet  us!  let 
her  go,  and  joy  go  with  her,  for  peace  Avill  stay 
behind.  The  Southern  Church  has  nothins:  to 
fear,  and  she  has  nothing  to  ask  on  this  subject. 
As  far  as  we  are  concerned,  sir,  the  greatest  bless- 
ing that  could  befjill  us  would  be  a  division  of  this 
union.  There,  sir,  at  the  South,  we  dwell  in 
peace,  and  the  good  Shepherd  watches  the  flock 
and  guards  us  from  all  harm.  There  are  no  jar- 
ring strings,  no  discordant  sounds,  no  incarnate 
emissaries  of  the  evil  one  o-oins:  about  seekinor 
whom  they  may  devour,  but  there  we  ^4ie  down 
in  green  pastures,  beside  the  still  waters."  If  we 
had  not  the  spirit  of  the  Master,  if  we  were  selfish 
enough  to  enjoy  the  bounty  of  our  heritage,  we 
would  court  division,  pray  for  it,  demand  it. 

But,  sir,  I  will  present  one  view  of  this  ques- 
tion that  has  not  been  touched  upon.  Set  off  the 
South,  and  what  is  the  consequence?  Do  you  get 
rid    of   embarrassment,    discord,   divi^^ion,   strife? 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  235 

No,  sir;  you  multiply  divisions.  There  will  be 
secessions  in  the  Northern  Conferences,  even  if 
Bishop  Andrew  is  deposed  or  resigns.  Prominent 
men  will  abandon  your  Church.  I  venture  to  pre- 
dict that  wdien  the  day  of  division  comes — and 
come  I  believe  it  will,  from  the  present  aspect  of 
the  case — that  in  ten  years  from  this  day,  and 
perhaps  less,  there  will  not  be  one  shred  of  the 
distinctive  peculiarities  of  Methodism  left  within 
the  Conferences  that  depart  from  us.  The  venera- 
ble man  who  now  presides  over  the  Northern 
Conferences  may  live  out  his  time  as  a  Bishop, 
but  he  will  never  have  a  successor.  Episcopacy 
will  be  given  up,  Presiding-eldership  will  be  given 
up,  the  itinerancy  will  come  to  an  end,  and  Con- 
gregationalism will  be  the  order  of  the  day.  The 
people  will  choose  their  own  pastors,  and  preach- 
ers will  be  standing  about  the  ecclesiastical  mar- 
ket-places, and  when  men  shall  ask,  "Why  stand 
ye  here  all  the  day  idle?"  the  answer  will  be, 
"Because  no  man  hath  hired  us."  We  have  unity 
and  peace,  and  seek  it  because  of  its  effects  on 
the  Connection,  and  I  believe,  to-day,  that  if  the 
New  England  Conferences  were  to  secede,  the  rest 
of  us  would  have  peace.  There  would  be  religion 
enough  left  among  us  to  live  together  as  a  band  of 
Christian  brothers. 

Sir,  I  object  to  the  substitute  for  another  rea- 
son.    I  would  have  preferred  the  original  resolu- 


^^ 


ii»w  of  tiie  wliole  snli^ecl.     S^j^M^se  thatr  view  is 
aidk^Mi;  uliait  is  it!     What  do  too  do  wilh  the 

Bts^ltfvf^?     Ymi  euuMil  put  him   on  a  eirenit  (nt 

^  lie  i?  ft  l^^p  in  duress — a  Bishop  in 

—  ;' — *  fifth  wheel  in  the 

—  i  to  hre  on  the 

s  Hade  for  his 

r  -  - — if  this  resolu- 


tion ts 
I 


i  leic  mat  I  o: 


are 

-TO 


"V 


,vs 


•(Onks  libber 

is  fwa^ed  firee  m  c 
q£  MdOMdi^  Hsity 

^  itef  bttrediHie! 


Ig      YT 


:*^'!«li¥e  lile" 


L  I?    ^.. 


I: 


e  were 
I 

V  kind,  the 
ed.     What 

_  ^  -  c^  that 

^ — that  he 

r  "f  the 

-.    ._-  : — _..^    ' -^   is 

any  of  tiie      -V 

1  beach-     Yet  ia  the 

e  to  come  oat  and 

exT^e^lieacy  he  shaU 

of  his  office,  or 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  237 

be  deposed?  What  mean  these  eulogies?  Are 
brethren  in  earnest?  Is  the  Conference  heaping 
garlands  on  the  victim  they  destine  for  slaughter? 
Has  it  come  to  this,  that  a  hirge  body  of  sober 
and  reverend  men,  in  the  face  of  their  own  ac- 
knowledgment of  blamelessness,  are  going  to  inflict 
one  of  the  severest  penalties  on  an  innocent,  un- 
offending man?  Why  w^ill  you  blight  with  a 
breath  the  bliss  of  this  worthy  man?  Will  you 
offer  him  up  to  appease  that  foul  spirit  of  the  pit 
which  has  sent  its  pestilential  breath  to  blast  and 
destroy  the  Church?  You  have  unchained  the 
lion,  and  now  that  he  is  raging  and  roaring  for  his 
prey,  you  select  a  venerable  Bishop — one  of  the 
ablest  and  best  of  the  whole  college — to  immolate 
him  on  the  altar  of  this  Juggernaut  of  perdition! 
Think  you  we  w^ill  sit  here  and  see  this  go  on 
without  lifting  a  voice  or  making  a  protest  against 
it?  Are  we  to  see  this  noble  man  sacrificed  for 
the  sake  of  New  England?  God  forbid  it!  God 
forbid,  I  say,  and  speak  it  from  the  depths  of  my 
heart. 

Brethren  may  say  what  they  please,  disclaim 
what  they  please,  eulogize  as  they  will,  they  can- 
not make  any  thing  of  this  but  the  deprivation  of 
a  constitutional  right.  In  the  case  of  the  appeal 
from  the  Baltimore  Conference  many  voted,  not 
because  they  believed  the  Conference  had  done 
right,   but  for  extraneous  reasons;    but   in  this 


238  Organkation  of  the 

question  the  vote  goes  out  upon  its  naked  merits, 
irrespective  of  any  disclaimer  or  acknowledg- 
ments that  may  be  made  in  reference  to  the 
Bishop's  rights,  character,  or  capacity.  But  to 
come  to  the  point — Has  he  a  right  to  hold  slaves 
under  the  Discipline  of  the  Church?  If  he  has, 
I  adjure  you  not  to  lay  violent  hands  upon  him. 
If  he  has,  I  ask  brethren  to  pause  and  say,  if  in 
the  prospect  of  facing  a  scrutinizing  world,  they 
can  go  out  with  the  stinging  recollection  in  their 
hearts  that  they  have  sacrificed  a  man  worthy  to 
preside  over  them,  to  the  restless  demands  of  an 
arrogant  and  insatiable  spirit  of  abolition?  I  do 
hope  brethren  will  pause  before  they  drive  us  to 
the  fearful  catastrophe  now  earnestly  to  be  depre- 
cated, but  inevitable  if  they  proceed. 

Dr.  Longstreet,  of  Mississippi,  followed  Mr. 
Pierce  on  the  same  side,  with  a  speech  remarkable 
for  its  force  and  clearness. 

Jesse  T.  Peck,  of  the  Troy  Conference,  spoke 
in  reply  to  Mr.  Pierce : 

The  only  occasion  upon  which  I  have  thought 
it  consistent  for  me  to  appear  in  this  discussion,  is 
in  reply  to  the  distinguished  member  from  the 
Georgia  Conference,  Rev.  G.  F.  Pierce.  The  near 
agreement  in  our  ages  is  my  apology.  The  rev- 
erend   gentleman    commenced    his    remarks    by 


31.  E.  Church,  South,  239 

stating  that  this  controversy,  as  it  appeared  to 
hi 01,  had  been  conducted  upon  the  part  of  the 
North  by  attempted  feats  of  legerdemain.  I  un- 
derstood him  to  say  that  Ave  had  done  this  by 
stating  self-evident  propositions,  and  then  forth- 
with deducing  conclusions  from  them  that  had  no 
more  connection  with  them  than  the  law  of  the 
tides  had  with  the  polar  star.  If  he  had  taken 
the  trouble  to  point  out  a  few  instances  of  this 
kind  of  defect,  I  could  have  given  it  the  attention 
due  to  reasoning;  but  as  he  was  not  pleased  to  do 
so,  and  as  he  is  an  educated  man,  he  will  doubtless 
be  satisfied  by  my  giving  him  credit  for  a  piece 
of  beautiful  declamation.  He  says  we  have  made 
a  false  issue  in  this  discussion.  And  what  is  it? 
Why,  that  we  have  discussed  it  as  an  individual 
matter,  confined  in  its  application  to  Bishop  An- 
drew himself;  whereas  it  was  in  truth  a  great  prac- 
tical question,  bearing  upon  the  whole  South.  We 
admit  it,  Mr.  President;  it  is  a  great  practical 
question,  bearing  not  upon  the  South  merely,  but 
upon  the  tvhole  Church.  We  utterly  disclaim  the 
limitation  of  the  question  to  any  man.  We  take 
up  the  issue  exactly  as  he  has  laid  it  down.  It 
is  upon  the  assertion  and  action  of  a  great  princi- 
ple of  immense  practical  hearing  that  we  predicate 
our  arguments.  It  is,  verily,  the  brother  may  be 
well  assured,  a  matter  of  great  practical  importance 
to  us,  and  to  the  Church,  whether  we  have  a  slave- 


240  Organization  of  the 

holding  Bishop  or  not.     Here,  then,  I  have  no 
contention  with  him. 

But,  Mr.  President,  the  brother  alarmed  me! 
He  made  a  declaration  which  was  to  me  utterly 
surprising!  He  says  the  great  question  of  unity 
is  decided!  (Mr.  P.  explained.  "Prospectively 
decided!")  Pi^ospedivelij  decided?  to  be  sure! 
Did  any  one  suppose  it  had  been  decided  retrospec- 
tiveli/?  Division,  then,  in  his  mind  is  really  in- 
evitable !  Surely,  sir,  1  had  not  thought  so.  And 
I  am  happy  to  say  I  know  many  brethren,  North 
and  South,  much  more  distinguished  for  age  and 
experience  than  either  of  us,  who  do  not  think 
so.  The  division  of  our  excellent  Church  decided ! 
Th*-^  unity  of  our  common  Methodism  destroyed ! 
Sfey  Heaven  forbid  it!  I  do  not  believe  it,  sir. 
The  strong  bonds  that  hold  us  together,  I  trust, 
are  not  sundered!  But,  he  says,  the  Baltimore 
appeal  case  virtually  decided  it.  I  do  not  so  un- 
derstand it.  There  were,  it  is  true,  several  points 
of  analogy  between  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding  and 
that  of  Bishop  Andrew.  But  the  action  contem- 
plated in  the  case  of  the  Bishop  is  widely  differ- 
ent from  that  had  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding. 
In  that  case  we  did  nothing  more  than  to  affirm 
the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference;  and  in 
that  act  say,  that  w^e  would  not  allow  slavery  to 
be  crowded  on  her,  after  she  had  nohl?/  declared  she 
would  not  have  it.     The  appellant  stood  suspended 


M.  K  Church,  South.  241 

from  his  ministerial  functions.  But  was  any  such 
thing  intended  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew? 
Did  the  resolution  affirm  any  such  thing?  Cer- 
tainly not.  It  merely  proposed  that  he  should 
desist  from  the  exercise  of  the  Episcopal  office 
until  he  should  free  himself  from  the  embarrass- 
ment of  slavery.  The  cases  then  were  w^idely 
different.  Brethren  were  undoubtedly  premature 
in  asserting  that  the  decision  of  the  Conference 
in  the  Baltimore  appeal  case  had  prospectively 
determined  the  division  of  the  Church!  Indeed, 
the  gentleman  himself  seemed  to  have  doubts 
about  it,  when  he  came  to  consider  a  little;  for 
after  he  had  progressed  in  his  argument  so  far  as 
to  consider  the  influence  of  the  proposed,  action 
in  the  case  of  the  Bishop,  he  declared,  "Pass  tkut 
resolution,  and  the  great  question  of  Methodistic 
unity  is  decided  forever."  Indeed !  Then  it  re- 
mains to  he  decided,  the  Baltimore  appeal  case  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding !  I  thank  the  brother 
for  that.  My  judgment  in  the  case  cannot  be  al- 
together groundless,  since  it  derives  support  from 
his  own  declarations.  Be  assured,  sir,  I  greatly 
rejoice  in  this. 

But  the  respected  brother  from  Georgia  insists 
that  the  idtimcde  design  is  the  disfranchisement 
of  all  Southern  ministers!  The  idtimcde  design! 
Beally,  sir,  this  is  extraordinary  sagacity !     If  he 

had  been  content  to  show  us  w^hat  was  the  legiti- 
11 


242  Organization  of  the 

mate  result  of  our  action,  we  must  have  corrected 
him,  or  submitted.  But  since  he  has  thought 
proper  to  declare  our  design,  we  must  demur. 
We  have  serious  doubts  as  to  the  competency  of 
any  man  to  tell  our  designs,  unless  we  avow  them. 
Disfranchise  all  Southern  preachers!  I  disclaim 
it,  sir.  In  the  name  of  the  Troy  Conference, 
which  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to  represent,  and 
in  the  name  of  the  whole  North,  I  disclaim  it.  I 
appeal  to  you,  brethren,  every  man  of  you,  to 
know  whether  you  have  ever  known  of  any  such 
idea  at  the  North.  I  am  fully  sustained;  no  such 
thought  can  be  in  existence.  But  the  argument 
by  which  my  respected  friend  sustained  this  ex- 
traordinary proposition  was  not  fully  developed. 
If  he  will  have  the  goodness  to  give  his  attention 
to  see  whether  I  do  it  correctly,  I  will  state  it  for 
him.  The  North  are  not  willing  that  a  slaveholder 
should  be  a  Bishop;  ergo,  they  are  determined 
that  no  slaveholder  shall  be  a  minister!  If  the 
brethren  of  the  South  have  any  argument  to  sup- 
port this  nioctrine  of  universal  proscription,  this 
certainly  must  be  it.  But  is  it  legitimate?  Is 
there  any  connection  between  the  antecedent  and 
the  consequent — the  premises  and  the  conclusion? 
I  cannot  see  it.  The  Discipline  prescribes  the 
circumstances  under  which  a  traveling  preacher 
may  hold  slaves.  But  does  it  say  any  thing  of 
circumstances  under  which  a  BisJiop  may  hold 


31.  E,  Church,  South.  243 

slaves?  Certaml}^  not;  for  the  condition  of  a 
Bishop  is  widely  different  from  that  of  any  ordi- 
nary traveling  preacher.  He  is  really  and  truly 
the  pastor  of  the  whole  Church,  and  slavery  will 
not  allow  him  to  be  so. 

Brethren  talk  of  the  infringement  of  their  con- 
stitutional rights.  But  what  do  they  mean  by  it? 
That  ani/  man  has  a  constitutional  right  to  be  a 
Bishop!  Such  a  right  as  he  had  to  graduation 
from  a  probationer  to  Elders  orders!  Has  any 
man  living  such  a  constitutional  right  to  be  elected 
to  the  Episcopal  office;  or  remain  in  it  after  he  is 
elected?  I  never  heard  of  such  a  thing.  Sir, 
there  is  no  constitution  in  the  case.  '  Neither  the 
Discipline  nor  the  General  Conference  has  ever 
said  what  special  cpalifications  would,  or  would 
not,  be  required  in  a  Bishop.  It  is  true,  sir,  that 
the  Discipline  nowhere  says  that  a  slaveholder 
shall  not  he  a  Bishop,  and  I  should  be  sorry  if  it 
did.  It  has  nowhere  said  that  a  rum-drinJcer  shall 
not  be  a  Bishop;  and  yet,  surely,  no  man  w^ould 
say  that  this  w^as  any  the  less  an  utter  disqualifi- 
cation for  the  office,  because  it  w^as  not  so  declared 
in  the  Discipline.  (I  beg,  Mr.  President,  you 
will  not  understand  me  to  compare  slavery  with 
rum-drinking.  I  mean  no  such  thing.  I  introduce 
it  only  for  purposes  of  illustration.)  No,  sir, 
there  are  no  constitutional  rights  invaded.  As  to 
whether  a  man  will  do  for  a  Bishop,  or  not,  the 


244  Organization  of  iJie 

General  Conference  is  the  sole  judge,  either  as  to 
his  election,  or  retention;  and  their  judgment  will 
have  its  true  expression  in  the  ballot-box.  A 
constitutional  right  to  be  a  Bishop!  You  might 
as  well  talk  of  a  constitutional  right  to  be  an  Ed- 
itor, or  a  Book  Agent,  or  any  other  General  Con- 
ference officer. 

But  the  brother  from  Georgia  says  this  measure 
will  not  save  us  from  secessions.  We  shall  have 
secessions  in  New  England !  We  shall  have  them 
everywhere!  What  can  be  done  to  satisfy  New 
England?  Sir,  as  the  name  of  New  England 
struck  my  ear,  I  felt  a  thrill  of  the  most  intense 
interest.  But,  the  reverend  gentleman  proceeded, 
^^they  are  busy-bodies  in  other  men's  matters!  A 
thorn  in  the  flesh!  A  messenger  of  Satan  to 
buffet  usl"  And,  alluding  (as  I  understood  him 
to  do)  to  a  certain  movement  in  New  England, 
and  certain  principles  upon  which  that  movement 
was  based,  he  called  it  "the  foul  spirit  of  the  pit! 
The  Juggernaut  of  perdition!"  etc.  Upon  this 
language,  Mr.  President,  I  may  not  remark!  I 
must,  of  necessity,  leave  it  without  animadver- 
sion! But  with  the  utmost  respect,  this  dear 
brother  will  excuse  me  for  saying  I  much  prefer 
the  terms  used  by  some  of  his  highly -respected  as- 
sociates. I  like  the  chaste  and  beautiful  language 
of  the  sweet-spirited  and  eloquent  Mr.  Crowder, 
and  the  dignified  and  forcible  style  of  the  rever- 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  245 

end  gentleman  who  last  preceded  me.  I  must  say, 
Mr.  President,  I  deprecate  the  use  of  such  lan- 
guage in  a  controversy  of  such  solemn  importance 
— a  controversy  invested  with  more  elements  of 
moral  grandeur  than  any  which  has  engaged  the 
attention  of  the  American  people  for  half  a  cen- 
tury! I  hope  the  brother  will  not  use  it  again, 
and  certainly  not  on  the  floor  of  this  General 
Conference.  But  my  friend  from  the  Georgia 
Conference  says,  ''  Let  New  England  go !  I  wish 
in  my  heart  she  would  secede!  And  joy  go  with 
her,  for  I  am  sure  she  w^ill  leave  peace  behind 
her!"  Let  New  England  go?  I  cannot  forget 
this  exclamation.  It  vibrates  in  my  soul  in  tones 
of  grating  discord.  Why,  sir,  what  is  New  Ejig- 
land  that  we  should  part  with  her  with  so  little 
reluctance?  New  England!  The  land  of  the 
Pilgrims — the  land  of  many  of  our  venerated 
fathers  in  Israel — the  land  of  Broadhead,  of 
Merritt,  of  the  revered  man  [pointing  to  George 
Pickering]  who  sits  by  my  side,  and  a  host  of 
worthies  whom  we  have  delighted  to  honor  as  the 
buhvarks  of  Methodism  in  its  early  days  of  primi- 
tive purity  and  peril.  Let  New  England  go? 
No,  sir,  we  cannot  part  so  easily  with  the  pioneer 
land  of  the  devoted  and  sainted  Jesse  Lee! 

But,  Mr.  President,  our  brethren  of  the  South 
utterly  mistake  the  truth  in  this  matter!  Why, 
sir,  they  can't  get  half  way  to  New  England  ia 


246  Organkaiion  of  the 

this  war!  They  must  wade  through  numbers  and 
forces  of  which  they  never  dreamed!  They  must 
encounter  us  in  the  center,  whose  opposition  to 
slavery  is  uncompromising.  And  Baltimore  (honor 
to  her  self-sacrificing  devotion  to  the  cause  of  hu- 
manity!) will  be  a  formidable  obstacle  in  the  way 
of  their  advance.  But  if  they  ever  should  subdue 
us,  and  reach  the  land  of  the  Pilgrims,  rest  assured, 
sir,  they  would  find  there  a  wall  of  brass  which 
would  remain  forever  impregnable  to  the  assaults 
of  the  slave-power!  We  are  happy  that  New 
England  is  with  us  to  a  man  in  this  fearful  con- 
flict— that  the  united  West,  and  North,  and  East, 
form  an  insuperable  barrier  to  the  advance  of 
slavery!  0  sir,  I  fear  me  much  our  brethren  at 
the  South  are  deceiving  themselves  in  this  matter. 
This  has  never  been  a  question  Qliwinciple  between 
us  and  New  England.  We  have  always  been 
agreed  in  fundamental  antislavery  sentiments,  and 
I  am  the  more  careful  to  allude  to  this,  because,  so 
far  as  I  remember,  it  is  a  distinction  that  has  not 
been  made  in  this  discussion.  It  has  been  purely 
a  question  of  measures  between  us.  In  this,  it  is 
true,  we  have  differed,  but  in  opposition  of  princi- 
ple to  slavery,  North,  East,  and  West,  we  always 
have  been,  and  I  trust  shall  ever  remain,  insepara- 
bly united.  We  resist  as  one  man  the  advance- 
ment of  slavery,  which,  not  content  to  be  confined 
within  its  own  geographical  limits,  threatens  to 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  247 

roll  its  dark  waves  over  the  North.  It  claims  the 
right  to  give  us  a  slavehblding  pastor!  a  slaveholding 
Bishop!  Do  not  then  be  surprised  that  we  are  so 
perfectly  united  in  asking  to  be  set  back  exactly 
where  we  were  a  few  months  ago.  0,  sir,  that  our 
brethren  could  roll  the  wheels  of  time  back  to  where 
they  were  last  November,  when  we  had,  compara- 
tively, no  difficulties  to  encounter !  But  this  they 
cannot  do.  What  less,  however,  can  they  expect 
us  to  ask,  than  that  they  should  do  what  is  equiva- 
lent to  it — give  us  our  Bishop  without  the  slaves  ? 
My  brother,  sir,  judges  about  as  poorly  of 
the  principles  and  condition  of  the  North  as  I 
should  of  the  South;  for  I  have  never  been  to  the 
South.  I  am  sorry  I  have  not.  I  should  like  to 
strike  the  hands  of  these  dear,  very  dear  brethren, 
whom  I  have  learned  to  love  upon  this  Conference 
floor,  as  I  never  should  have  supposed  possible,  at 
their  own  dear  homes.  I  should  like  to  go  there, 
sir,  if  I  might,  my  antislavery  principles  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding!  [Cries  of  several 
voices, ''  Come  on — come  on — we  shall  be  glad  to 
see  you."]  Let  New  England  go !  No,  sir,  never. 
And  here  I  beg  to  say,  that  our  Southern  brethren 
can't  induce  us  to  use  such  language  in  reference 
to  them.  They  can't  provoke  us  to  it,  sir.  Let 
the  South  go!  No,  sir,  we  love  them  too  well. 
We  love  them  for  their  goodness,  and  respect  them 
for  their  talents.     We  love  them  for  their  stern, 


248  Organization  of  the 

unbending  regard  to  principle  and  adherence  to 
Discipline.  We  love  them  for  their  conservatism, 
ultra  sometimes  though  it  may  be,  we  love  them 
for  it.  Let  the  South  go !  No,  sir,  we  cannot 
part  Avith  our  brethren,  whom  we  love  so  well. 
True,  w^e  cannot  compromise  principle,  to  save 
them — nor  to  save  the  East.  But  we  need  not. 
They  are  too  magnanimous  to  demand  it.  We 
shall  live  and  die  wdth  them — zue  ivill  not  let  them 
go  unless  they  tear  themselves  from  our  arms  be- 
dewed with  the  tears  of  affection.  Never!  no, 
never  I 

On  the  next  day.  May  25,  Mr.  Peck,  resuming 
the  discussion,  said: 

Mr.  President:  It  would  have  been  agreeable 
to  me  if  I  might  have  concluded  my  remarks  yes- 
terday, without  interruption;  but  the  arrival  of 
the  hour  for  adjournment  compelled  me  to  leave 
the  argument  in  an  unfinished  state.  Much  as  I 
regretted  this,  however,  I  should  have  preferred, 
if  my  friends  w^ould  have  allowed  me  to  do  it,  to 
have  left  it  there.  To  this,  it  is  due  to  myself  to 
state,  I  could  not  get  their  consent.  In  obedience, 
therefore,  to  a  judgment  to  w^hich  I  always  feel 
bound  to  defer,  I  resume  the  floor  to-day. 

"  Ten  years  from  now,  and  our  glorious  General 
Superintendency,  and  our  time-honored  itinerancy 
will  have  expired ! "  So  says  the  prophecy  of  yes- 
terday !     Only  ten  years  will  suffice  to  pull  down 


31.  E.  Church,  South,  249 

this  beautiful  edifice,  and  annihilate  the  very  ma- 
terials of  which  it  is  constructed!  The  strong 
confidence  it  has  inspired  in  its  votaries — the  ar- 
dent attachment  of  those  whom  it  has  saved — the 
profound  admiration  which  its  almost  supernatural 
wisdom  and  adaptation  have  gathered  around  it, 
from  all  classes  of  people — all  these  cannot  save  it. 
It  is  doomed,  and  fall  it  must!  Only  ten  years, 
and  the  last  flickerings  of  this  once  brilliant  and 
glorious  light  will  have  died  away  in  the  socket! 
But,  Mr.  President,  as  I  am  but  a  child  in  these 
matters,  and  so  have  seen  but  little  of  the  secret 
workings  of  small,  but  mighty  agencies,  upon  the 
basis  of  this  noble  fabric,  I  am  curious  to  inquire 
into  the  cause  of  this  prophetic  fate.  What  is  it 
that  is  to  work  such  devastation  and  ruin  to  the 
fair  heritage  of  God?  Let  this  reason  stand  out 
in  bold  relief,  stripped  of  all  its  drapery,  where 
we  can  see  it  just  as  it  is.  This  is  certainly  no 
time  for  rhetorical  ornament.  At  a  time  when 
interests  so  vast  and  solemn  are  pending  upon  the 
action  of  a  single  principle,  let  that  principle  be 
exhibited  naked  and  unadorned,  that  we  may  not 
mistake  it.  What,  then,  is  the  cause  that  is  des- 
tined to  effect  the  overthrow  of  institutions  vener- 
able with  age,  and  potent  for  the  amelioration  of  the 
condition  of  man  ?  Why,  sir,  if  I  have  not  mistaken 
it,  it  is  simply  this :  This  General  Conference  is  likely 
to  say  that  a  slaveholder  cannot  he  a  Bishop. 
11* 


250  Organization  of  the 

Look  at  it,  undisguised,  and  alone,  as  it  is. 
Examine  it  carefully,  in  all  its  dimensions  and 
bearings,  and  see  if  you  can  discover  any  ade- 
quacy in  the  cause  to  produce  the  predicted  effect. 
Can  it  be  that  the  Almighty  arm  will  be  withdrawn 
from  beneath  us  for  this  ?  That  Ave  shall  be  aban- 
doned to  destruction  for  the  w\ant  of  a  union  be- 
tw^een  slavery  and  the  Episcopate?  What  ele- 
ment of  our  purity  and  primitive  simplicity  will 
it  destroy?  What  adaptation  of  our  noble  system 
will  it  annihilate,  to  have  no  slaveholding  Bishop? 
Will  God,  indeed,  be  angry  with  us,  and  leave  us 
to  ourselves /or  ^ftef  Is  this  the  foundation-stone 
of  our  spiritual  edifice,  that  it  must  inevitably 
crumble  to  ruins  when  it  is  removed?  If  God 
should  forsake  us,  we  are  ruined — irrecoverably 
ruined !  But,  sir,  /  cannot  believe  he  tvill.  He  ha^ 
not  in  former  times,  and  w^e  have  been  without  a 
slaveliolding  Bishop  for  sixty  years !  The  grand 
itinerant  plan  of  publishing  salvation  to  the  per- 
ishing world  has  gone  on  gloriously,  dispensing  its 
invaluable  blessings  to  almost  every  land,  not- 
withstanding. Now,  I  know^,  sir,  if  I  were  rea- 
soning of  a  man,  and  were  to  say,  He  has  not 
forsaken  us,  therefore  he  tvill  not,  that  I  should  be 
justly  chargeable  w^ith  the  legerdemain  in  debate 
which  my  friend  from  the  South  so  gracefully  as- 
cribed to  us  yesterday.  But,  sir,  when  I  say  it 
of  the  unchangeable  God,  he  did  not,  therefore,  in 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  251 

the  same  circumstances,  he  will  not,  I  feel  myself 
fully  sustained.  No,  Mr.  President,  I  cannot 
adopt  this  dismal  prophecy.  It  has  too  much  of 
the  air  of  romance  about  it.  If  nothing  more  is 
justly  laid  to  our  charge  than  the  simple  refusal 
to  depart  from  our  former  state  in  this  matter,  I 
verily  believe  the  everlasting  arms  will  be  under- 
neath us  still.  The  wheels  of  the  itinerancy  will 
continue  to  roll  on,  and  the  ages  of  the  future  will 
yet  exhibit  the  now  undeveloped  power  of  this 
wonderful  plan. 

I  will  now,  sir,  ask  attention  to  what  appears  to 
me  to  be  a  very  singular,  and  yet  very  frequent, 
exclamation  from  Southern  brethren,  and  I  do 
it  not  in  the  spirit  of  casuistry.  They,  almost  to 
a  man,  call  upon  us  io  2'>ctuse  !  "  Pause ! "  say  they, 
"we  beseech  you;  pause  before  you  advance  an- 
other step!"  Indeed,  sir;  this  is  a  very  extraor- 
dinary prayer  under  the  circumstances.  My 
neighbor  moves  his  fence,  and  barn,  and  house  on 
my  farm!  and  when  I  begin  to  insist  upon  his 
taking  them  off,  he  cuies  out.  Pause!  "Pause, 
sir,  I  beseech  you!  Your  measures  will  be  pro- 
ductive of  immense  injury  to  yourself  and  me!'* 
What,  sir,  should  I  say  to  him  in  this  case?  Why, 
sir,  can  any  one  doubt  that  I  should  instantly 
reply.  This  is  the  wrong  time  to  call  for  a  pause? 
The  time  to  pause  was  when  you  began  to  make 
your  arrangements  to  move  your  buildings  on  my 


252  Organization  of  the 

land!  Then,  if  some  kind  friend  had  called  out 
to  7/011,  in  the  language  you  address  to  me,  it  would 
have  been  exceedingly  relevant.  But  now,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  there  can  he  no  pause,  until 
you  retrace  your  steps,  and  relieve  my  premises 
of  your  effects.  Need  I  make  the  application  of 
this  homely  illustration?  I  am  sure  I  need  not. 
It  is  obvious  and  necessary.  But  I  shall  not  ffiil 
to  look  well  to  the  only  hinge  upon  which  this 
argument  turns.  The  great  question  is.  Who  has 
been  the  aggressor  in  this  case?  (I  use  the  term 
in  no  bad  sense.)  Upon  whom  rests  the  respon- 
sibility of  the  present  fearful  issue?  Does  it  rest 
upon  us  of  the  North?  Does  it  rest  upon  this 
General  Conference?  I  verily  believe  it  does  not, 
sir.  When,  or  w^here,  may  I  be  allowed  to  ask, 
have  we  infrino:ed  the  ri^'hts  of  our  brethren  at  the 
South?  It  is  true,  we  have  laid  our  petitions  at 
your  feet.  But  in  this  have  we  done  any  thing 
more  than  to  exercise  the  natural  rights  of  free- 
men? The  citizens  of  this  free  republic  must  be 
allowed  to  petition,  and  w#  must  receive  their  pe- 
titions respectfully  expressed,  and  give  them  the 
consideration  which  their  nature  and  importance 
demand.  Petitions  have  been  presented  to  you, 
sir;  petitions,  to  be  sure,  w^hich,  from  the  state  of 
the  public  mind  in  which  they  originated,  have 
required  careful  analysis;  but  many  of  which  have 
deserved  a  most  patient  hearing.     But,  sir,  what 


M.  B.  Church,  South.  253 

have  we  done  ?  What  single  decision  of  this  body, 
since  this  excitement  commenced,  has  not  been 
adapted  with  singular  care  to  the  interests  of  the 
South?  Nay,  sir,  we  have  cautiously  guarded 
the  South,  in  every  official  act  that  looked  toward 
this  exciting  subject.  We  are  aware  that  it  is  a 
perfect  system  of  sensitiveness — a  complete  bun- 
dle of  nerves!  And  we  have  always  acted  with 
this  fact  fully  in  view.  Indeed,  sir,  I  am  honestly 
in  doubt — and  I  know  my  brethren  of  the  South 
will  allow  me  to  express  it — whether  we  have  not 
more  reason  to  ask  the  pardon  of  the  East  than 
of  the  South  in  this  matter.  This  I  will  not, 
however,  attempt  to  decide,  because  it  is  unneces- 
sary. But,  sir,  the  question  returns.  Whence  is 
the  origin  of  our  present  difficulty?  Does  it  come 
from  the  North?  Certainly  not.  Have  we  orig- 
inated this  innovation?  I  need  not  answer.  I 
ask,  then,  most  respectfully,  When  was  the  proper 
time  to  pause?  This  question  brings  us  no  relief. 
It  is  too  late,  and  I  will  not  repeat  it.  But  surely 
the  call  to  pause  will  be  suspended  by  our  breth- 
ren of  the  South,  until  they  have  put  themselves 
right  in  regard  to  the  question  at  issue.  If  it  be 
inquired  where  the  Maine  is  located,  since  we  will 
not  allow  it  to  rest  upon  the  North,  I  answer  / 
locate  it  nowhere.  Indeed,  I  will  not  talk  of  Name. 
It  can  do  no  good.  The  question  is  one  of  remcchj. 
We  cannot  fear  that  we  shall  be  blamed  for  iwess- 


254  Organisation  of  the 

ing  the  question  of  remedy.  It  ought  not  to  be 
asked  of  us,  that  we  should  be  satisfied  to  have 
the  Bishop  of  the  whole  territory  trammeled  by 
peculiar  and  local  institutions.  It  is  not  nccessarg 
for  the  good  of  that  part  of  the  work  wdiere  slavery 
exists,  and  it  must,  from  the  very  nature  of  the 
case,  be  ruinous  to  that  large  part  of  it  where  it 
does  not  exist. 

But,  Mr.  President,  I  am  exceedingly  thankful 
that  there  is  one  common  ground  to  the  South  and 
North.  Not,  perhaps,  to  the  whole  South,  but  to 
many  of  its  most  distinguished  men — I  refer  to 
the  magnanimous  concessions  which  have  been 
freely  made  upon  the  election  of  a  slaveholding 
Bishop.  It  has  been  conceded,  wdth  a  frankness 
and  Christian  candor  which  deserve,  and  shall  re- 
ceive, our  highest  praise — not,  indeed,  that  no 
slaveholder  should  be  eligible  to  the  Episcopal 
office — for  our  Southern  brethren  talk  with  pre- 
cision on  this  difficult  question — but  that  it  was 
inexpedient  to  attempt  an  election  on  any  such 
ground.  In  the  very  style  of  considerate  North- 
ern men,  it  has  been  urged  in  the  South  that  the 
Bishop  is  the  officer  of  the  whole  Church,  and  it 
is  not  advisable  to  trammel  him  with  a  local  diffi- 
culty. It  must  not  be  a  question  of  North  and 
South,  but  simply  who  is  the  best  man  for  the 
office.  Where  is  the  man  of  God  upon  whom  it 
will  be  safe  to  devolve  such  a  fearful  responsi- 


M.  E,  Church,  South,  255 

bility?  This  is  noble.  But  will  our  Southern 
brethren  abide  by  this  principle?  I  am  aware 
that  I  have  no  right  to  charge  the  necessary 
correlate  of  an  acknowledged  sentiment  upon  an 
opponent,  unless  he  avow  it.  But  it  is  my  right 
to  show  what  is  implied  in  that  sentiment,  and 
what  results  necessarily  follow  it.  And  I  will  ask 
brethren,  What  objection  have  we  to  the  election 
of  a  slaveholding  Bishop?  None,  surely,  but 
what  is  based  upon  the  idea  of  having  one.  Why 
do  we  of  the  North  object  to  electing  a  man  in 
such  circumstances  to  the  Episcopacy?  For  no 
other  reason  in  the  world  than  that  we  have  no  use 
for  him  when  he  is  elected.  He  cannot  be  a  true 
Methodist  itinerating  Superintendent.  No,  sir, 
it  is  not  to  electing,  but  to  having  one,  that  insupera- 
ble objections  arise  in  the  minds  of  Northern  men. 
Need  I  apply  these  remarks?  Can  brethren  fail 
to  see  that  nothing  more  is  needed  to  relieve  ns 
from  our  present  difficulties  than  the  legitimate 
action  of  the  principle  universally  claimed  by  the 
North,  and  so  extensively  conceded  by  the  South? 
No,  sir,  let  it  be  distinctly  borne  in  mind  that  the 
vote  upon  the  present  resolution  must  depend  upon 
precisely  the  same  principles  as  the  vote  for  an 
election.  We  grant,  it  is  a  much  more  delicate 
matter;  so  much  so,  indeed,  as  to  almost  appall  the 
stoutest  heart;  but  the  jprinciple  is  the  same,  and 
the  action  must  he  the  same. 


256  Organization  of  the 

But,  Mr.  President,  there  is,  I  must  say,  one 
attitude  taken  by  my  brethren  from  the  South  to 
which  I  find  it  difficult  to  reconcile  my  feelings. 
It  is,  I  confess,  a  matter  of  extreme  delicacy  for 
me  to  allude  to  it;  and  yet  I  know  I  shall  have 
the  indulgence  of  Southern  brethren.  If  I  had 
ever  had  any  doubts  in  regard  to  Southern  mag- 
nanimity, they  would  have  been  removed  by  what 
has  taken  place  on  the  floor  of  this  Conference 
during  this  discussion.  They  do  not  condemn  a 
man  for  speaking  his  sentiments  out  fully.  No, 
sir.  I  doubt  not,  that,  if  I  were  to  appeal  to  my 
reverend  friend  on  my  right,  (Dr.  Smith,  of  Vir- 
ginia,) to  whose  eloquent  remarks  we  have  so  fre- 
quently listened  with  the  most  intense  interest,  he 
would  say,  "It  is  coivardly  and  mean  for  a  man  to 
shrink  from  an  honest  and  frank  avow^al  of  his 
opinions  and  feelings  upon  a  question  of  such 
magnitude  as  this  for  fear  of  difference  with  those 
who  had  other  opinions  and  other  feelings."  I 
wdll  therefore  mention  that  subject,  with  which 
my  mind  has  been  burdened  and  afflicted  for  sev- 
eral days.  Connected  with  the  arguments  of  our 
Southern  brethren,  there  is  constantly  held  up 
before  us  the  idea  (I  will  not  call  it  a  menace)  of 
a  division  of  the  Church,  if  we  persist  in  our  course ! 
Do  not  brethren  know  that,  by  this  course,  they 
throw  a  fearful  difficulty  in  the  way  of  a  free  and 
safe  discussion  of  this  subject?   an  impediment 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  257 

almost  sufficient  to  drive  us  from  the  discussion 
altogether?  I  know  our  dear  brethren  cannot 
fliil,  upon  the  mere  mention  of  this  matter,  to  think 
of  the  results  which  ^nai/  follow  to  the  interests 
of  their  flocks  and  charges  in  the  South.  I  know 
very  well  that  they  do  not  feel  themselves  at  the 
disposal  of  good  men  and  Methodists  in  this  thing 
— that  it  is  in  the  power  of  wicked  men  to  break 
up  their  missions  and  destroy  their  usefulness — 
and  they  are  not  at  liberty  to  be  recJcless  of  re- 
sults. But  can  they  not  waive  their  discussion,  at 
least  for  the  present?  It  is  enough,  sir,  to  chill 
the  blood  of  any  man  to  look  these  difficulties  in 
the  face  as  they  are  presented  by  Southern  breth- 
ren. It  is  almost  enough  (but  I  thank  God  not 
quite  enough)  to  make  us  forego  a  great  principle 
to  relieve  ourselves  from  the  responsibility  of  de- 
ciding the  case.  I  will  therefore  ask  it  as  a  favor 
to  Methodism,  that  this  great  and  intimidating 
question  of  division  may  be  allowed  to  sleep  a  few 
days,  till  we  can  talk  over  the  great  principle  at 
issue.  I  dread,  I  confess  to  you,  sir,  to  approach 
the  question  with  such  a  fearful  contingency  sus- 
pended, in  terrorem,  over  my  head.  Division  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church!  It  frightens 
me  to  think  of  it.  I  am  compelled,  however  re- 
luctantly, to  admit  in  my  own  mind,  that  there  is 
fearful  truth  in  the  hazard  to  our  nation,  to  which 
brethren  refer,  in  such  a  result.   Divide  the  Church 


258  Organizaiion  of  the 

just  as  we  are  rallying  our  energies  to  prosecute 
with  united  power  our  missionary  labors!  just  as 
we  are  about  to  combine  our  strength  for  the  pur- 
pose of  efficient  action  in  the  great  cause  of  Chris- 
tian education!  Divide  the  Church  at  a  time 
when  most  of  all  the  great  principle  of  Method- 
is  tic  unity  is  indispensable  to  form  an  insupera- 
ble barrier  to  the  advance  of  Roman  Catholicism, 
which  threatens  to  throw  its  witherino;  blie^ht  over 
all  that  is  fair  and  lovely  in  this  glorious  republic, 
and  menaces  the  very  frame-work  of  our  political 
freedom!  0  no,  sir;  it  is  liere  that  I  Avould  call 
upon  brethren  to  pause.  Again,  I  entreat,  hush 
this  frightful  dream  to  sleep,  that  we  may  calmly 
study,  undisturbed,  the  merits  of  the  question  be- 
tween us. 

I  must,  Mr.  President,  notice  one  thing  more 
in  the  remarks  of  my  honored  friend  from  Geor- 
gia, and  then  I  must  leave  him;  for  then  I  think 
he  will  admit  that  I  have  given  him  at  least  a  re- 
spectful degree  of  attention.  He  anxiously  in- 
quires what  we  are  to  do  with  Bishop  Andrew,  if 
he  should  resign  his  Episcopal  office.  He  would 
be  ^  fifth  wheel  in  Methodism,  an  anomaly,  and  an 
inoperative  member!  This,  Mr.  President,  is  really 
strange.  An  Elder  in  the  Church  of  Grod — a  man 
of  unbounded  popularity — a  man  of  ardent  piety 
and  gushing  sympathies — with  the  whole  South 
before  him,  in  every  part  of  which  he  would  be 


M,  K  Church,  South.  259 

hailed  with  acclamations  of  joy — and  where  more 
work  will  crowd  upon  him  than  any  two  men  can 
have  strength  to  perform — nothinc/  to  do!  A  fifth 
wheel  in  the  ministry !  it  must  be  impossible,  sir, 
for  a  man  to  be  serious,  in  such  an  attempt  to 
create  a  difficulty.  But,  sir,  w^e  have  been  asked, 
what  do  we  mean  by  our  eulogies  of  Bishop  An- 
drew! The  tributes  paid  to  his  character  have 
been  described  in  the  beautiful  rhetoric  of  my 
friend  from  Georgia,  as  garlands  decking  a  victim 
for  the  sacrifice.  Eeally,  sir,  this  is  very  extra- 
ordinary language.  Is  it  strange,  that  as  we  feel 
ourselves  compelled  to  lay  our  hands  upon  his 
official  relation,  we  should  think  it  proper  to  dis- 
claim any  attack  upon  his  Christian  and  ministerial 
character?  Is  it  not  due  to  him,  and  due  to  us,  to 
disavow  any  want  of  respect  or  affection  for  the 
man?  Indeed,  sir,  our  brethren  have  mistaken 
the  bearing  of  our  allusions  to  Bishop  Andrew's 
worth  altogether.  This  is  one  of  the  most  trying 
aspects  of  the  case.  'T  is  for  this  very  reason  that 
we  deserve  the  respect  and  sympathy  of  both 
friends  and  foes.  How,  I  ask,  could  we  more 
clearly  exhibit  our  regard  for  a  great  principle 
than  to  refuse  to  allow  even  the  exalted  virtues 
and  worthy  character  of  Bishop  Andrew  to  divert 
our  attention  from  it?  Sir,  this  is  what  in  every 
thing  else  the  world  calls  moral  heroism,  and  we 
deserve  respect,  and  not  reproaches  for  it.     It  is 


260  Organization  of  the 

the  worth  of  the  man,  as  well  as  the  exalted  char- 
acter of  his  office,  that  overwhelms  us  with  grief, 
at  every  step  of  our  progress.  It  is  a  mournful 
task,  and  if  at  any  time  during  this  discussion 
there  has  been  manifested,  anywhere,  a  disposi- 
tion to  levity,  I  regret  it,  sir;  it  pains  me  beyond 
measure  to  see  it,  when  our  business  is  character- 
ized by  the  deep-toned  sorrow  of  funeral  solemni- 
ties! 

I  cannot  here  avoid  an  allusion  to  a  remark  of 
yesterday,  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Longstreet,  though  I 
adhere  to  my  purpose  not  to  reply  to  his  speech. 
He  found  the  community  of  New  York  charged  with 
sympathy  for  Bishop  Andrew.  It  is  undoubtedly 
true,  sir,  and  I  should  be  grieved  if  it  were  other- 
wise. The  generous  sympathies  of  noble  hearts 
in  our  crowded  gallery,  and  rear,  and  throughout 
this  community,  find  a  most  sincere  and  hearty 
response  upon  this  Conference-floor.  I  would  not 
for  the  world  dry  up  this  crystal  fountain  or  di- 
vert it  from  its  legitimate  channels.  The  rever- 
end gentleman  is  correct  in  regard  to  the  facts, 
but  he  has  misinterpreted  them.  He  has  imag- 
ined that  these  genuine  pulsations  of  nature  rise 
up  in  rebellion  to  us^  and  yield  to  the  demands 
for  a  slaveholding  Bishop.  No,  sir,  he  is  greatly 
mistaken.  I  beg  to  assure  him  that  a  greater 
error  could  scarcely  have  been  committed.  These 
are  the  sympathies  upon  which  we  cast  ourselves 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  261 

for  support,  in  this  trying  crisis.  It  is  this  that 
secures  to  us,  as  well  as  to  our  afflicted  Bishop, 
the  prayers  and  the  tears  of  the  noblest  men  and 
women  of  which  human  nature  can  boast. 

Perhaps  I  ought  to  apologize,  sir,  for  the  warmth 
and  emotion  with  which  I  defended  New  England 
yesterday.  It  was  the  land  of  my  sire.  There 
repose  the  ashes  of  my  fathers  back  to  the  earliest 
generations  of  this  land.  It  is  the  birthplace  of 
at  least  two  of  our  venerable  Bishops,  who,  thanks 
to  Providence,  are  with  us  to-day — of  our  honored 
Olin,  and  venerated  Bangs.  It  was  the  land  of 
the  sainted  Fisk.  And  never,  while  our  moral 
heavens  are  radiant  with  the  glories  of  this  lumi- 
nary of  the  Church,  shall  the  fair  fame  of  the 
land  that  gave  him  birth  be  aspersed.  Peace  to 
his  ashes,  and  honor  to  his  memory  I  He  was  a  good 
and  a  great  man — one  of  New  England's  proudest 
sons.  Let  me  here  only  say,  sir,  that  from  this 
same  land  are  rising  up  now  a  host  of  strong  men, 
who  already  stand  forth  as  champions  in  the  fear- 
ful conflict  with  sin.  How  can  I  speak  otherwise 
than  ivarmly  when  reproach  has  been  heaped  upon 
a  land  that  has  furnished  so  many  of  the  brightest 
luminaries  of  the  Church? 

Sir,  I  have  done.  I  thank  you,  and  I  thank 
the  Conference,  for  the  indulgence  I  have  received. 
Sure  I  am  that  I  have  not  deserved  it,  and  I  feel 
my  obligations  of  gratitude  the  more.    I  embarked 


262  Organkation  of  the 

in  this  noble  ^^'ship"  when  I  was  but  a  boy,  and  I 
cannot  be  persuaded  to  leave  her.  I  like  her  form, 
her  structure,  and  her  machinery  well.  I  like  her 
passengers,  her  officers,  and  her  crew.  I  like  the 
sea  on  which  she  sails,  and  the  port  to  which  she 
is  bound.  True,  she  is  exposed  to  storms,  and 
may  sometimes  stagger  beneath  the  beating  tem- 
pest, and  reel  amid  the  engulfing  floods.  And  at 
such  a  time  be  not  surprised  if  the  signals  of  dis- 
tress be  heard — the  life-boat  launched,  and  num- 
bers, forsaking  her  in  fright,  commit  themselves  to 
the  merciless  waves.  Other  craft,  of  sprightly 
form  and  splendid  sails,  may  heave  alongside,  and 
invite  us  aboard.  But,  sir,  do  not  be  in  haste  to 
go.  Look  Avell  to  her  ballast  and  build,  for  I  fear 
she  is  too  crank  and  loose  to  survive  the  perils  of 
this  frightful  sea.  No,  sir,  let  us  stay  on  board 
the  "old  ship."  Sunshine  or  storm,  darkness  or. 
light,  I  see  her  riding  safely  on  the  waves — tri- 
umphing over  every  danger — and  gallantly  bearing 
her  precious  burden  toward  the  haven  of  rest.  In 
every  gale  that  shall  strike  her,  as  she  is  proudly 
careering  amid  the  raging  elements,  my  voice  shall 
be  heard  above  the  noise  of  wind  and  wave,  in  the 
words  of  the  dying  Lawrence,  "Don't  give  up  the 
ship!" 

Mr.  Pierce  rose  to  explain,  and  said  he  should 
be  very  glad  to  reply  at  length ;  but  as  he  spoke 


M.  E.  Church  South.  263 


by  courtesy  and  not  by  right,  he  would  confine 
himself  to  explanation.  He  observed  he  was  ex- 
ceedingly startled  at  the  proposition  of  Brother 
Peck,  that  a  Bishop  had  no  constitutional  right  to 
be  a  Bishop.  He  had  always  understood  that 
when  a  man  is  legitimately  appointed  to  office,  he 
has  a  constitutional  right  to  that  office  for  the 
whole  term — that  he  cannot  be  ejected  unless  he 
has  been  in  fault.  As  to  the  perhaps  unfortunate 
expression  which  he  yesterday  made  use  of  toward 
New  England,  some  apology  might  be  due;  but, 
on  the  whole,  he  would  not  regret  it,  as  it  had 
afforded  his  honored  brother  such  a  theater  for 
displaying  his  peculiar  talents.  He  intended  to 
say  that  for  Ncav  England  to  secede,  or  to  be  set 
off  with  a  pro  rata  division  of  the  property,  would 
be  a  light  evil  compared  with  the  immolation  of 
Bishop  Andrew  on  the  altar  of  a  psexido  expe- 
diency. He  meant  that  the  loss  of  New  England 
was  as  the  dust  of  the  balance  compared  with 
such  a  gross,  palpable,  unjust,  outrageous  violation 
of  law.  He  intended  to  convey  the  idea  that  the 
great  Head  of  the  Church  did  not  require  the  sac- 
rifice of  an  innocent  and  unoffending  man  for  the 
sake  of  maintaining  peace  and  order  in  the  Church. 
The  Church  required  no  such  sacrifice  for  her 
unity  or  her  character.  As  to  the  unkind  epithets 
to  which  the  brother  had  referred,  he  wished  to 
be  understood,  not  as  having  applied  them  to  New 


264  Organization  of  the 

England,  but  to  abolition  and  its  misguided  abet- 
tors. If  all  New  England  was  engaged  in  this 
unhallowed  war  on  the  South  and  on  Southern 
institutions,  then  he  meant  New  England;  if  not, 
he  would  be  understood  otherwise.  He  intended 
no  disrespect  or  injustice  to  New  England.  He 
would  cheerfully  acknowledge,  because  he  honestly 
believed,  in  accordance  with  the  views  so  elo- 
quently expressed  by  the  brother  who  had  pre- 
ceded him,  that  there  were  many  noble  sons  from 
New  England.  As  the  last  speaker  had  referred 
to  Bishop  Soule,  he  (Mr.  Pierce)  hoped  he  should 
be  permitted  to  say  that,  from  his  father's  repre- 
sentations, he  had  learned  to  admire  him  before 
he  saw  him,  and  acquaintance  had  ripened  admira- 
tion into  reverence.  There  was  an  honored  repre- 
sentative of  the  New  York  Conference,  (Dr.  Olin,) 
who  favored  the  Conference  with  his  opinions 
a  few  days  ago,  whom  he  had  loved  from  his  early 
boyhood,  and  never  more  than  now;  and  he  took 
this  occasion  to  assure  him,  that  whatever  might  be 
his  vote  on  this  trying  question,  he  would  still  re- 
main enshrined  in  the  fervid  affections  of  a  heart  too 
warm  to  speak  prudently  on  an  occasion  like  this. 
And,  sir,  I  recognize  you  (addressing  Mr.  Peck) 
as  a  man  with  a  soul  in  your  body,  warm,  gener- 
ous, glowing.  I  admire  your  spirit — your  genius. 
The  beauty  of  the  bud  gives  promise  of  a  luscious 
blossom — the  early  beams  foretell  a  glorious  noon. 


M,  E.  Chnrch,  South.  265 

And  now,  sir,  though  my  speech  shocked  your 
nerves  so  badly,  I  trust  my  explanation  will  not 
ruffle  a  hair  upon  the  crown  of  your  head.  [A 
burst  of  laughter,  Mr.  Peck  being  very  bald.] 

The  discussion  was  continued  until  the  30th  of 
May,  during  which  time,  in  addition  to  the 
speeches  already  referred  to,  Messrs.  Hamline,  of 
Ohio,  Comfort,  of  Oneida,  Collins,  of  Baltimore, 
Finley,  of  Ohio,  Cartwright,  of  Illinois,  and  Dr. 
Durbin,  of  Philadelphia,  addressed  the  Conference 
in  favor  of  the  substitute,  and  Messrs.  Green,  of 
Tennessee,  Smith,  of  Virginia,  Stamper,  of  Illi- 
nois, Sehon,  of  Ohio,  Dunwody  and  Dr.  Capers, 
of  South  Carolina,  against  it. 

The  speeches  delivered  on  this  occasion  have 
seldom  been  equaled,  and  never  surpassed,  in  the 
Senate-chamber  of  the  United  States. 

A  leading  journal  published  in  New  York  said: 
''It  is  but  simple  justice  to  say  that  the  Confer- 
ence was  worthy  of  eminent  distinction  on  the 
score  of  talent.  Its  members  were  all  clergymen, 
and  therefore  public  speakers  by  profession,  and 
many  of  them  were  gifted  with  the  highest  order 
of  eloquence.  Perhaps  no  body  of  men  in  the 
country  ever  contained  in  a  higher  degree  those 
peculiar  talents  which  give  strength  and  force  to 
oral  discussion." 

However  pleasant  it  might  be  to  record  the 
12 


266  Organization  of  the 

speeches  delivered  on  the  occasion,  to  do  so  would 
swell  this  volume  far  beyond  our  design. 

During  the  discussion,  on  the  28th  day  of  May, 
and  immediately  following  the  speech  of  Mr.  Col- 
lins, Bishop  Andrew  addressed  the  Conference. 
He  said : 

Mr.  President : — I  have  been  on  trial  now  for  a 
week,  and  feel  desirous  that  it  should  come  to  a 
close.  For  a  week  I  have  been  compelled  to  listen 
to  discussions  of  which  I  have  been  the  subject, 
and  I  must  have  been  more  than  man,  or  less  than 
man,  not  to  have  felt.  Sir,  I  have  felt,  and  felt 
deeply.  I  am  not  offended  with  any  man.  The 
most  of  those  who  have  spoken  against  me,  have 
treated  me  respectfully,  and  have  been  as  mild  as 
I  had  any  right  to  expect.  I  cherish  no  unkind 
feelings  toward  any.  I  do  not  quarrel  with  my 
abolition  brethren,  though  I  believe  their  opinions 
to  be  erroneous  and  mischievous.  Yet,  so  long  as 
they  conduct  themselves  courteously  toward  me, 
I  have  no  quarrel  with  them.  It  is  due  that  some 
remarks  should  be  made  by  me,  before  the  Confer- 
ence come  to  a  conclusion  upon  the  question,  which 
I  hope  will  be  speedily  done,  for  I  think  a  week 
is  long  enough  for  a  man  to  be  shot  at,  and  it  is 
time  the  discussion  should  terminate. 

As  there  has  been  frequent  reference  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  my  election  to  the  Episcopal  office, 


M,  E.  Church,  SouiJu  267 

it  is  perhaps  proper  that  I  give  a  brief  history  of 
that  matter.  A  friend  of  niine,  (Brother  Hodges,) 
noAv  with  God,  asked  me  to  permit  myself  to  be 
put  in  nomination  for  that  office.  I  objected — the 
office  had  no  charms  for  me.  I  was  with  a  Con- 
ference that  I  loved,  and  that  loved  me.  What 
^vas  I  to  gain  to  be  separated  from  a  happy  home 
— from  a  wife  and  children  whom  I  loved  more 
than  I  did  my  own  life  ?  But  my  friend  urged 
me ;  he  said  my  election  would,  he  believed,  tend 
to  promote  the  peace  of  the  Church,  and  that  he 
believed  it  would  be  especially  important  to  the 
prosperity  of  Methodism  at  the  South.  Finally 
I  consented,  with  the  hope  of  failure ;  but  I  was 
nominated  and  elected.  I  was  never  asked  if  I 
was  a  slaveholder — no  man  asked  me  what  were 
my  principles  on  the  subject — no  one  dared  to  ask 
of  me  a  pledge  in  this  matter,  or  it  would  have 
been  met  as  it  deserved.  Only  one  man.  Brother 
Winans,  spoke  to  me  on  the  subject :  he  said  he 
could  not  vote  for  me  because  he  believed  I  was 
nominated  under  the  impression  that  I  was  not  a 
slaveholder.  I  told  him  I  had  not  sought  the 
nomination,  nor  did  I  desire  the  office,  and  that 
my  opinions  on  the  propriety  of  making  non-slave- 
holding  a  test  of  qualification  for  the  office  of 
Bishop  were  entirely  in  unison  with  his  own.  Sir, 
I  do  not  believe  in  this  matter  of  secret  will  as  a 
rule  of  action,  either  in  the  revelations  of  the 


268  Organization  of  the 

Bible,  or  in  the  jjrescriptions  of  the  Book  of  Discip- 
line. I  believe  in  the  revealed  will  of  God,  and  in  the 
written  law  of  the  Church  as  contained  in  the  Book 
of  Discipline.  I  took  office  upon  the  broad  plat- 
form of  that  book,  and  I  believe  my  case  is  covered 
by  it.  It  was  known  that  I  w^as  to  reside  at  the 
South ;  I  was  elected  in  view  of  that  very  thing,  as  it 
was  judged  important  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
Church  that  one  of  the  Bishops  should  reside  in 
that  section  of  the  w^ork,  and  it  w^as  judged  I  could 
be  more  useful  there  than  elsewhere.  Well,  what 
was  I  to  do  then  ?  I  was  located  in  a  country 
where  free  persons,  could  not  be  obtained  for  hire, 
and  I  could  not  do  the  w^ork  of  the  family — my 
wife  could  not  do  it — what  w^as  I  to  do  ?  I  was 
compelled  to  hire  slaves,  and  pay  their  masters  for 
their  hire ;  but  I  had  to  change  them  every  year 
— they  were  bad  servants,  for  they  had  no  inter- 
est in  me  or  mine — and  I  believe  it  would  have 
been  less  sin  before  God  to  have  bought  a  servant 
w^ho  w^ould  have  taken  an  interest  in  me  and  I  in 
him ;  but  I  did  not  do  so.  At  length,  how^ever,  I 
came  into  the  possession  of  slaves ;  and  I  am  a 
slaveholder,  (as  I  have  already  explained  to  the 
Conference,)  and  I  cannot  help  myself.  It  is 
known  that  I  have  waded  through  deep  sorrows 
at  the  South  during  the  last  four  years ;  I  have 
buried  the  wife  of  my  youth  and  the  mother  of 
my  children,  who  left  me  with  a  family  of  mother- 


3L  K  Church,  South.  269 

less  children,  who  needed  a  friend  and  a  mother. 
I  sought  another;  (and  with  this  the  Conference 
has  nothing  to  do;)  I  found  one  who,  I  beUeved, 
would  make  me  a  good  wife,  and  a  good  mother 
for  my  children.  I  had  known  her  long — my  chil- 
dren knew  and  loved  her.  I  sought  to  make  my 
home  a  happy  one,  and  I  have  done  so.  Sir,  I 
have  no  apology  to  make.  It  has  been  said  I  did 
this  thing  voluntarily,  and  with  my  eyes  open.  I 
did  so  deliberately  and  in  the  fear  of  God — and 
God  has  blessed  our  union.  I  might  have  avoided 
this  difficulty  by  resorting  to  a  trick — by  making 
over  these  slaves  to  my  wife  before  marriage,  or 
by  doing  as  a  friend  who  has  taken  ground  in  favor 
of  the  resolution  before  you  suggested :  "  Why," 
said  he,  "  did  you  not  let  your  wife  make  over 
these  negroes  to  her  children,  securing  to  herself 
an  annuity  from  them  ? "  Sir,  my  conscience 
would  not  allow  me  to  do  this  thing.  If  I  had 
done  so,  and  those  negroes  had  passed  into  the 
hands  of  those  who  would  have  treated  them  un- 
kindly, I  should  have  been  unhappy.  Strange  as 
it  may  seem  to  brethren,  I  am  a  slaveholder  for 
conscience'  sake.  I  have  no  doubt  that  my  wife 
would,  without  a  moment's  hesitation,  consent  to 
the  manumission  of  those  slaves,  if  I  thought 
proper  to  do  it.  I  know  she  would  unhesitatingly 
consent  to  any  arrangement  I  might  deem  it  proper 
to  make  on  the  subject.     But  how  am  I  to  free 


270  Organization  of  the 

them?  Some  of  them  are  old,  too  old  to  work 
to  support  themselves,  and  are  only  an  expense  to 
me ;  and  some  of  them  are  little  children ;  where 
shall  I  send  these?  and  who  will  provide  for  them  ? 
But,  perhaps,  I  shall  be  permitted  to  keej)  these; 
but,  then,  if  the  others  go,  how  shall  I  provide  for 
these  helpless  ones  ?  and  as  to  the  others,  to  what 
free  State  shall  I  send  them  ?  and  what  would  be 
their  condition?  Besides,  many  of  them  would 
not  go — they  love  their  mistress,  and  could  not 
be  induced,  under  any  circumstances,  to  leave  her. 
Sir,  an  aged  and  respectable  minister  said  to  me, 
several  years  ago,  when  I  had  stated  just  such  a 
case  to  him,  and  asked  him  what  he  would  do, 
"  I  would  set  them  free,"  said  he,  "  I  'd  wash  my 
hands  of  them,  and  if  they  went  to  the  devil,  I'd 
be  clear  of  them."  Sir,  into  such  views  of  relig- 
ion or  philanthropy  my  soul  cannot  enter.  I  be- 
lieve the  providence  of  God  has  thrown  these  crea- 
tures into  my  hands,  and  holds  me  responsible  for 
their  proper  treatment.  I  have  secured  them  to 
my  wife  by  deed  of  trust  since  our  marriage.  The 
arrangement  was  only  in  accordance  with  an  un- 
derstanding existing  previous  to  marriage.  These 
servants  were  hers — she  had  inherited  them  from 
her  former  husband's  estate — they  had  been  her 
only  source  of  support  during  her  widowhood, 
and  would  still  be  her  only  dependence  if  it  should 
please  God  to  remove  me  from  her.     I  have  noth- 


M,  E,  Church,  South,  271 

ing  to  leave  her.  I  have  given  my  life  to  the 
Church  from  the  clays  of  my  youth,  (and  I  am 
now  fifty,)  and  although,  as  I  have  previously  re- 
marked, she  would  consent  to  any  arrangement  I 
might  make,  yet  I  cannot  consent  to  take  advan- 
tage of  her  affection  for  me  to  induce  her  to  do 
what  would  injure  her  without  at  all  benefiting 
the  slaves. 

Sir,  I  did  not,  for  a  moment,  believe  that  this 
body  of  grave  and  reverend  ministers  would  make 
this  a  subject  of  serious  discussion.  I  thought  it 
likely  that  there  might  be  some  warm  ultra  breth- 
ren here  who  would  take  some  exception  to  my 
course,  and  on  that  account  I  did  not  make  the 
deed  of  trust  before  marriage,  lest  some  should 
suppose  I  designed  to  dodge  the  responsibility  of 
the  case.  Those  who  know  me  must  know  that  I 
could  not  be  governed  by  the  mere  matter  of  dol- 
lars and  cents.  AVhat  can  I  do  ?  I  have  no  con- 
fession to  make — I  intend  to  make  none.  I  stand 
upon  the  broad  ground  of  the  DiscijDline  on  which 
I  took  ofiice,  and  if  I  have  done  wrong,  put  me 
out.  The  editor  of  the  Christian  Advocate  has 
prejudged  this  case.  He  makes  me  the  scape- 
goat of  all  the  difficulties  which  abolition  excite- 
ment has  gotten  up  at  the  North.  I  am  the  only 
one  to  blame,  in  his  opinion,  should  mischief  grow 
out  of  this  case.  But  I  repeat,  if  I  haA^e  sinned 
against  the  Discipline,  I  refuse  not  to  die.     I  have 


272  Organization  of  the 

spent  my  life  for  the  benefit  of  the  slaves.  When 
I  was  but  a  boy,  I  taught  a  Sunday-school  for 
slaves,  in  which  I  taught  a  number  of  them  to 
read ;  and  from  that  period  till  this  day  I  have 
devoted  my  energies  to  the  promotion  of  their 
happiness  and  salvation ;  with  all  my  influence 
in  private,  in  public,  with  my  tongue,  with  my 
pen,  I  have  assiduously  endeavored  to  promote 
their  present  and  eternal  happiness.  And  am 
I  to  be  sacrificed  by  those  who  have  done  lit- 
tle or  nothing  for  them  ?  It  is  said  I  have  ren- 
dered myself  unacceptable  to  our  people.  I  doubt 
this.  I  have  just  returned  from  Philadelphia, 
where  they  knew  me  to  be  a  slaveholder;  yet 
they  flocked  to  hear  me,  and  the  presence  of  God 
was  with  us ;  we  had  a  good,  warm,  old-fashioned 
meeting.  I  may  be  unacceptable  in  New  York, 
yet  from  the  experience  I  have  had,  I  doubt  even 
that.  To  whom  am  I  unacceptable  ?  Not  to  the 
l^eople  of  the  South — neither  masters  nor  slaves. 
Has  my  connection  with  slaves  rendered  me  less 
acceptable  to  the  colored  people  of  the  South — 
the  very  people  for  whom  all  this  professed  sym- 
pathy is  felt  ?  Does  the  fact  that  I  am  a  slave- 
holder make  me  less  acceptable  among  them  ?  Let 
those  who  have  labored  long  among  them  answer 
the  question.  Sir,  I  venture  to  say  that  in  Caro- 
lina or  Georgia  I  could  to-day  get  more  votes  for 
the  office  of  Bishop  from  the  colored  people,  than 


3L  K  Church,  South.  273 

any  supporter  of  this  resolution,  let  him  avow 
himself  an  emancipator  as  openly  as  he  pleases. 
To  the  colored  peogle  of  the  South  there,  and  to 
their  owners — to  the  entire  membership  of  the 
slaveholding  Conferences — I  would  not  be  unac- 
ceptable; but,  perhaps,  they  lire  no  part  of  "our 
people ;"  in  short,  sir,  I  believe  that  I  should  not 
be  unacceptable  to  one -half  of  the  Connection; 
but  on  this  question  I  have  nothing  to  say.  Should 
the  Conference  think  proper  to  pass  me,  there  is 
plenty  of  ground  where  I  can  labor  acceptably  and 
usefully.  The  slaveholding  Conferences  will  pre- 
sent a  field  sufficiently  large  for  me,  should  I  live 
to  the  age  of  Methuselah ;  and  the  Bishops,  in  ar- 
ranging the  work,  will  certainly  have  discretion 
enough  not  to  send  me  where  I  would  not  be  re- 
ceived; nor  would  I  obtrude  myself  upon  any 
Conference,  or  lay  my  hands  upon  the  head  of  any 
brother,  who  would  feel  himself  contaminated  by 
the  touch.  However,  on  this  subject  I  have  noth- 
ing to  say.  The  Conference  can  take  its  course; 
but  I  protest  against  the  proposed  action  as  a  vio- 
lation of  the  laws  of  the  Discipline,  and  an  inva- 
sion of  the  rights  secured  to  me  by  that  Book. 
Yet  let  the  Conference  take  the  steps  they  con- 
template ;  I  enter  no  plea  for  mercy — I  make  no 
appeal  for  sympathy;  indeed,  I  love  those  who 
sympathize  with  me,  but  I  do  not  want  it  now. 

I  wish  you  to  act  coolly  find  deliberately,  and  in 
12* 


274  Organization  of  the 

the  fear  of  God ;  but  I  would  rather  that  ihe  Con- 
ference would  change  the  issue,  and  make  the  res- 
olution to  depose  the  Bishop,  and  take  the  ques- 
tion at  once,  for  I  am  tired  of  it.  The  country  is 
becoming  agitated  upon  the  subject,  and  I  hope 
the  Conference  will  act  forthwith  on  the  resolu- 
tion. 

On  the  29th  of  May,  Bishop  Soule  addressed 
the  Conference  in  a  very  impressive  manner,  urg- 
ing upon  the  body  the  importance  of  calmness. 
He  said : 

I  do  not  know  but  this  may  be  a  favorable  mo- 
ment for  me  to  offer  to  the  Conference  the  few  re- 
marks I  desire  to  make  before  final  action  shall  be 
had  on  the  subject  which  is  now  pending  before 
the  Conference.  I  have  had  no  solicitude  with 
regard  to  the  period  of  time  when  I  should  offer 
these  remarks,  only  that  it  might  be  a  time  of 
calmness  and  reflection.  I  will  indulge  the  hope 
that  this  is  such  a  time,  and  therefore  avail  my- 
self of  the  opportunity.  I  rise,  sir,  at  this  mo- 
ment, as  I  once  said  before,  with  all  the  calmness 
which  the  occasion,  I  think,  requires.  But  this  is 
not  the  calm  that  precedes  the  tempest  and  the 
storm ;  it  is  not  the  .calmness  of  indifference ;  it 
cannot  be.  It  is,  sir,  the  calmness  of  conviction. 
It  is  the  calmness  of  principle.     If  indeed  I  could 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  275 

be  persuaded  that  my  very  respectal3le  brother 
from  the  Pittsburgh  Conference  was  entirely  cor- 
rect in  his  opinion,  that  all  the  light  which  could 
be  furnished  on  this  subject  had  been  furnished,  I 
should  not  rise  here.  There  is  a  possibility  that 
the  brother  may  be  mistaken.  I  cannot  say  that 
I  should  have  forborne  to  rise,  though  I  had  been 
convinced  of  the  correctness  of  the  judgment  of 
the  respected  brother  from  New  England,  that 
though  we  should  sit  here  till  January  next,  no 
brother  would  be  changed  in  his  vote  on  this  ques- 
tion. I  say,  I  do  not  know  that  I  should  have 
forborne  my  observations,  though  I  might  have 
been  convinced  of  the  correctness  of  this  opinion ; 
but  if  no  more  light  could  be  produced,  any  thing 
that  I  could  say  would  be  unavailing. 

There  are  periods,  sir,  in  the  history  of  the  life 
of  every  man  who  sustains  any  important  station 
in  society,  who  holds  any  important  relations  to 
it,  when  his  individual  character  cannot,  must  not, 
be  neutralized  by  the  laws  of  association.  Under 
this  view,  in  what  I  shall  say  to  this  Conference, 
I  involve  no  man  in  responsibility.  My  venerable 
colleagues  are  in  no  way  concerned  in  what  I  shall 
say  to  this  Conference ;  so  that  however  I  may  be 
involved,  they  are  not  involved.  The  South,  on 
my  right,  is  not  involved.  The  North,  on  my 
left,  is  not  involved.  I  stand  in  this  regard  alone. 
I  hope  not,  indeed,  alone  in  the  sentiments  that  I 


276  Organization  of  ihe 

shall  express  to  the  Conference.  Brethren  have 
manifested  a  solicitude  to  bring  this  question  to 
an  issue — to  close  the  debate  and  come  to  the  vote. 
I  ask  brethren  if  it  is  not  j)ossible,  nowithstand- 
ing  the  time  which  has  been  employed  in  this  dis- 
cussion, notwithstanding  the  enlarged  views  which 
brethren  have  expressed  on  the  question  before 
them — I  ask  if  it  is  not  possible  that  action  on 
the  resolution  may  not  yet  be  premature?  So- 
ciety, sir,  wdiether  civil  or  religious,  has  much 
more  to  fear  from  the  passions  of  its  members, 
than  it  has  to  fear  from  calm  investigation  and 
sober  inquiry.  I  am  not  afraid  to  meet  the  calm- 
ness of  deliberation  anywhere.  I  am  not  afraid 
to  meet  it  here ;  I  am  not  afraid  to  meet  it  in  the 
Annual  Conference ;  I  am  not  afraid  to  meet  it  be- 
fore the  great  religious  community  of  which  we 
are  members  and  ministers.  I  am  not ;  but  I  fear 
the  rage  of  the  passions  of  men.  I  fear  excite- 
ments— ardent  excitements,  prematurely  produced 
in  society;  and  I  apprehend  that  if  we  trace  the 
history  of  associations,  W'hether  civil  or  ecclesi- 
astical, we  shall  find  that  these  premature  excite- 
ments, waking  up  the  rage  of  passion,  have  pro- 
duced greater  calamities  than  ever  were  produced 
by  the  calmness  of  deliberation  and  the  sobriety 
of  inquiry,  however  extensive  those  investigations 
may  have  been.  The  sound  of  the  trumpet  of 
alarm  may  go  forth  from  within  these  consecrated 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  277 

walls — the  sound  may  spread  itself  on  the  wings 
of  the  wind,  or  of  the  whirlwind,  over  the  length 
and  breadth  of  these  lands ;  but,  sir,  when  this 
sound  shall  have  died  away,  when  the  elements 
which  may  have  been  awakened  to  boisterous  and 
tumultuous  action,  shall  subside  into  the  calmness 
of  inquiry  and  reason,  a  voice  may  return  to  this 
hall,  wafted  on  a  counter-breeze ;  and  though  the 
voice  be  not  heard  in  the  thunder,  the  earthquake, 
or  the  storm,  it  may  pierce  through  the  veil  of  our 
speculations,  and  of  our  theories,  and  the  first 
sound  will  be  heard  in  the  inquiry,  "  What  is  the 
cause?''  Well,  sir,  it  will  be  the  province  of  rea- 
son and  sobriety  to  answer.  Here  it  is,  sir,  spread 
out  before  me,  spread  out  before  you,  in  a  plain, 
unsophisticated  statement  of  facts  by  Bishop  An- 
drew. I  have  not  heard  a  brother  from  the  North 
— I  have  not  heard  a  brother  from  the  South — 
(and  I  have  listened  to  hear) — allege  that  there 
were  any  other  facts,  that  there  were  any  other 
circumstances,  having  any  bearing  whatever  on 
the  merits  of  the  case  now  before  you.  I  take  it 
for  granted,  then,  that  we  have  the  entire  facts  of 
the  case  before  us ;  and  these  facts  are  the  cause 
of  whatever  alarm,  whatever  excitement,  may  have 
spread  through  our  beloved  Zion,  and  over  this 
continent. 

Now,  sir,  I  will  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  Con- 
ference while  I  read  an  extract  from  the  address 


278  Organization  of  the 

of  your  general  superintendents  at  your  last  ses- 
sion.    You  will  indulge  me  in  this. 

"  The  experience  of  more  than  half  a  century, 
since  the  organization  of  our  ecclesiastical  body, 
will  afford  us  many  important  lights  and  land- 
marks, pointing  out  what  is  the  safest  and  most 
prudent  policy  to  be  pursued  in  our  onward  course 
as  regards  African  slavery  in  these  States,  and 
especially  in  our  own  religious  community.  This 
very  interesting  period  of  our  history  is  distin- 
guished by  several  characteristic  features,  having 
a  special  claim  to  our  consideration  at  the  present 
time,  particularly  in  view  of  the  unusual  excite- 
ment which  now  prevails  on  the  subject,  not  only 
in  the  different  Christian  Churches,  but  also  in 
the  civil  body.  And,  first,  our  general  rule  on 
slavery,  which  forms  a  part  of  the  constitution  of 
the  Church,  has  stood  from  the  beginning  un- 
changed, as  testamentary  of  our  sentiments  on  the 
principle  of  slavery  and  the  slave-trade.  And  in 
this  we  differ  in  no  respect  from  the  sentiments  of 
our  venerable  founder,  or  from  those  of  the  wisest 
and  most  distinguished  statesmen  and  civilians  of 
our  own  and  other  enlightened  and  Christian  coun- 
tries. Secondly,  in  all  the  enactments  of  the 
Church  relating  to  slavery,  a  due  and  respectful 
regard  has  been  had  to  the  law^s  of  the  States, 
never  requiring  emancipation  in  contravention  of 
the  civil  authority,  or  where  the  laws  of  the  States 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  279 

would  not  allow  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  free- 
dom. Thirdly,  the  simply  holding  or  owning  slaves, 
without  regard  to  circum.stances,  has  at  no  period 
of  the  existence  of  the  Church  subjected  the  mas- 
ter to  excommunication.  Fourthly,  rules  have 
been  made,  from  time  to  time,  regulating  the  sale, 
and  purchase,  and  holding  of  slaves,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  different  laws  of  the  States  where 
slavery  is  tolerated ;  which,  upon  the  experience 
of  the  great  difficulties  of  administering  them,  and 
the  unhappy  consequences  both  to  masters  and 
servants,  have  been  as  often  changed  and  repealed. 
"  These  important  facts,  which  form  prominent 
parts  of  our  past  history  as  a  Church,  may  very 
properly  lead  us  to  inquire  for  that  course  of  ac- 
tion in  future  which  may  be  best  calculated  to  pre- 
serve the  peace  and  unity  of  the  whole  body,  pro- 
mote the  greatest  happiness  of  the  slave  popula- 
tion, and  advance  generally,  in  the  slaveholding 
community  of  our  country,  the  humane  and  hal- 
lowing influence  of  our  holy  religion.  We  cannot 
withhold  from  you,  at  this  eventful  period,  the 
solemn  conviction  of  our  minds,  that  no  new  ec- 
clesiastical legislation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  at 
this  time  will  have  a  tendency  to  accomplish  these 
most  desirable  objects.  And  we  are  fully  per- 
suaded that,  as  a  body  of  Christian  ministers,  we 
shall  accomplish  the  greatest  good  by  directing 
our  individual  and  united  efforts,  in  the  spirit  of 


280  Organization  of  the 

the  first  teachers  of  Christianity,  to  bring  both 
master  and  servant  under  the  sanctifying  influence 
of  the  principles  of  that  gospel  which  teaches  the 
duties  of  every  relation,  and  enforces  the  f^iithful 
discharge  of  them  by  the  strongest  conceivable 
motives.  Do  we  aim  at  the  amelioration  of  the 
condition  of  the  slave?  How  can  we  so  effectu- 
ally accomplish  this,  in  our  calling  as  ministers  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ,  as  by  employing  our  whole  in- 
fluence to  bring  both  him  and  his  master  to  a  saving 
knowledge  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  to  a  practical 
observance  of  those  relative  duties  so  clearly  pre- 
scribed in  the  writings  of  the  inspired  apostles  ? 
Permit  us  to  add,  that  although  we  enter  not  into 
the  political  contentions  of  the  day,  neither  inter- 
fere with  civil  legislation  nor  with  the  administra- 
tion of  the  laws,  we  cannot  but  feel  a  deep  inter- 
est in  whatever  affects  the  peace,  prosperity,  and 
happiness  of  our  beloved  country.  The  union  of 
these  States,  the  perpetuity  of  the  bonds  of  our 
national  confederation,  the  reciprocal  confidence  of 
the  different  members  of  the  great  civil  compact; 
in  a  word,  the  well-being  of  the  community  of 
which  we  are  members,  should  never  cease  to  lie 
near  our  hearts,  and  for  Avhich  we  should  offer  up 
our  sincere  and  most  ardent  prayers  to  the  Al- 
mighty Ruler  of  the  universe. 

"  But  can  we,  as  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and 
servants  of  a  Master  Svhose  kingdom  is  not  of 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  281 

this  world/  promote  these  important  objects  in 
any  way  so  truly  and  permanently  as  by  pursuing 
the  course  just  pointed  out?  Can  we,  at  this 
eventful  crisis,  render  a  better  service  to  our  coun- 
try than  by  laying  aside  all  interference  with  rela- 
tions authorized  and  established  by  the  civil  laws, 
and  applying  ourselves  wholly  and  faithfully  to 
what  specially  appertains  to  our  '^high  and  holy 
calling ;'  to  teach  and  enforce  the  moral  obligations 
of  the  gospel,  in  application  to  all  the  duties  grow- 
ing out  of  the  different  relations  in  society?  By 
a  diligent  devotion  to  this  evangelical  employment, 
with  an  humble  and  steadfast  reliance  upon  the 
aid  of  divine  influence,  the  number  of  '  believing 
masters'  and  servants  maybe  constantly  increased, 
the  kindest  sentiments  and  affections  cultivated, 
domestic  burdens  lightened,  mutual  confidence 
cherished,  and  the  peace  and  happiness  of  society 
be  promoted.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  if  past 
history  affords  us  any  correct  rules  of  judgment, 
there  is  much  cause  to  fear  that  the  influence  of 
our  sacred  office,  if  employed  in  interference  with 
the  relation  itself,  and  consequently  with  the  civil 
institutions  of  the  country,  will  rather  tend  to  pre- 
vent, than  to  accomplish,  these  desirable  ends." 

Sir,  I  have  read  this  extract  that  the  members 
of  this  General  Conference  who  were  not  present 
at  the  last  session,  and  this  listening  assembly, 
who  may  not  have  heard  it  before,  may  understand 


282  Organisation  of  the 

distinctly  the  ground  on  which  I,  with  my  col- 
leagues, stand  in  regard  to  these  questions.  I  de- 
sire that  this  document  may  stand  recorded,  with 
my  name  to  it,  till  I  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth. 
(Amen.)  I  desire  to  leave  it  a,s  a  legacy  to  my 
children  and  my  children's  children;  and,  if  I 
might  be  permitted  to  say  so,  I  would  leave  it  as 
a  legacy  to  the  Church  when  I  am  no  more.  I 
want  no  man  to  write  my  epitaph.  I  will  write  it 
myself.  I  want  no  man  to  write  and  publish  my 
Life.  I  will  do  that  myself  as  far  as  I  think  it 
ma}^  be  necessary  for  the  interests  of  posterity,  or 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Church  of  God.  I  regret, 
in  reading  the  Life  of  my  venerable  colleague,  who 
has  gone  from  earth  to  heaven  since  your  last  ses- 
sion, that  this  document,  as  it  stood  connected 
with  his  name,  has  not  appeared  in  that  memou\ 
I  thank  the  author  of  "  The  History  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church" — I  mean  Dr.  Bangs — for 
having  presented  this  document  in  that  History. 
I  met  it  in  Europe,  and  I  am  glad  it  is  there.  I 
never  wished  my  name  detached  from  it;  no,  never, 
7iever.  When  this  was  written,  your  superintend- 
ents believed  that  they  were  acting  in  perfect  ac- 
cordance with  the  Pastoral  Address  of  the  General 
Conference  at  its  session  in  Cincinnati.  We  think 
so  now.  Well,  sir,  I  have  only  one  forther  re- 
mark to  make  before  I  proceed  to  the  chief  object 
for  which  I  address  the  Conference  this  morning. 


M.  E,  Church,  South,  283 

It  is  this:  I  desire  that  no  undue  influence  may 
be  produced  from  the  peculiar  relation  in  which 
I  stand  to  the  Church.  Sympathy  may  exert  too 
great  an  influence  when  it  is  brought  to  bear  on 
great  principles.  The  only  subject  which  has 
aw\akened  my  sympathies  during  this  whole  dis- 
cussion, is  the  condition  of  my  suffering  brethren 
of  the  colored  race,  and  this  never  fails  to  do  it. 
No  matter  where  I  meet  the  man  of  color,  whether 
in  the  South,  or  in  the  North  with  the  amount  of 
liberty  he  enjoys,  the  sympathies  of  my  nature 
are  all  awakened  for  him.  Could  I  restore  bleed- 
ing Africa  to  freedom,  to  independence,  to  the 
rights — to  all  the  rights — of  man,  I  would  most 
gladly  do  it.  But  this  I  cannot  do — you  cannot 
do.  And  if  I  cannot  burst  the  bonds  of  the  col- 
ored man,  I  will  not  strengthen  them.  If  I  cannot 
extend  to  him  all  the  good  I  would,  I  will  never 
shut  him  out  from  the  benefits  Avhich  I  have  it  in 
my  power  to  bestows  But,  sir,  I  cannot  withhold 
this  sentiment  from  the  Conference,  that  wdth  the 
mental  and  physical  labors  of  this  relation  I  could 
never  have  been  sustained — I  could  never  have 
supported  myself — I  could  never  have  ministered 
to  the  Church  unless  I  had  been  settled  down  on 
some  principles  equally  as  changeless  as  the  throne 
of  God,  in  my  estimation — never,  never.  It  is  a 
constant  recurrence  to  these  great  principles  that 
has  sustained  me  in  the  discharge  of  what  I  con- 


284  ^        Organkation  of  the 

ceive  to  be  my  duties — duties  which  grow  out  of  my 
relation  to  the  Church,  and  not  simjDly  to  this  Con- 
ference. These  principles  have  sustained  me  in 
the  city,  and  in  the  desert  waste;  they  have  sus- 
tained me  in  the  North,  and  they  have  sustained 
me  in  the  South ;  they  have  sustained  me  in  the 
c[uarters  of  the  black  man,  and  in  the  huts  of  the 
red  man.  Shake  me  from  these  principles,  and  I 
am  done — I  have  done,  I  say.  But  what  is  this? 
Why,  sir,  is  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churcli  de- 
pendent upon  me?  Far  from  it;  her  interest 
hangs  not  upon  my  shoulders  at  all.  She  can  do 
a  great  deal  better  without  me  than  I  can  without 
her;  much  better.  Well,  sir,  laying  aside  this 
point — endeavoring  to  disengage  myself  as  far  as 
possible,  consider  me  as  expressing  my  own  opin- 
ions, without  reference  to  my  colleagues.  I  wish 
to  say,  explicitly,  that  if  the  superintendents  are 
only  to  be  regarded  as  the  officers  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  consequently,  as  officers  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  liable  to  be  deposed  at  will  by 
a  simple  majority  of  this  body,  without  a  form  of 
trial,  no  obligation  existing  growing  out  of  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  the  Church,  even  to  as- 
sign cause  wherefore — I  say,  if  this  doctrine  be  a 
correct  one,  every  thing  I  have  to  say  hereafter  is 
powerless,  and  falls  to  the  ground.  But  brethren 
will  permit  me  to  say,  strange  as  it  may  seem, 


31.  E,  Church,  South  285 

I 
although  I  have  had  the  honor  and  the  privilege 

to  be  a  member  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ever  since  its  present 
organization,  though  I  was  honored  with  a  seat  in 
the  convention  of  ministers  which  organized  it,  in 
this  respect  I  have  heard  for  the  first  time,  either 
on  the  floor  of  this  Conference,  in  an  Annual  Con- 
ference, or  through  the  whole  of  the  private  mem- 
bership of  the  Church,  this  doctrine  advanced; 
this  is  the  first  time  I  ever  heard  it.  Of  course 
it  struck  me  as  a  novelty.  I  am  not  going  to 
enter  the  arena  of  controversy  with  this  Confer- 
ence. I  desire  that  my  position  may  be  defined. 
I  desire  to  understand  my  landmarks  as  a  Bishop 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  —  not  the 
Bishop  of  the  General  Conference,  not  the  Bishop 
of  any  Annual  Conference.  I  thought  that  the 
constitution  of  the  Church — I  thought  that  its  laws 
and  regulations — I  thought  that  the  many  solemn, 
vows  of  ordination,  the  parchment  which  I  hold 
under  the  signatures  of  the  departed  dead  —  I 
thought  that  these  had  defined  my  landmarks — I 
thought  that  these  had  prescribed  my  duties — I 
thought  that  these  had  marked  out  my  course.  In 
my  operations  I  have  acted  under  the  conviction 
that  these  were  my  directions  and  landmarks,  and 
it  affords  me  great  consolation  this  day  to  stand, 
at  least  in  the  judgment  of  this  body,  to  w^hich  I 
hold  myself  responsible,  and  before  which  I  will 


286  Organization  of  the 

always  be  ready  to  appear  to  answer  to  any  charge 
they  shall  prefer  against  me — I  say  it  affords  me 
some  gratification  to  have  stood  acquitted  for 
twenty  years  in  the  discharge  of  the  high  trust 
committed  to  my  hands ;  and  I  here  desire  to  offer 
my  grateful  acknowledgments  to  the  Episcopal  Com- 
mittee for  the  report  they  have  brought  to  this 
body,  and  to  the  Conference  for  their  cordial  ac- 
ceptance of  that  report.  I  say  I  do  it  with  senti- 
ments of  sincerity;  and  it  is  the  more  cordial  to 
me  in  view  of  what  may  yet  be  to  come.  In  this 
regard,  although  I  have  trembled  beneath  the 
weight  of  responsibility,  and  shrunk  before  the 
consciousness  of  my  inability,  and  especially  as  I 
have  felt  my  physical  infirmities  coming  upon  me, 
and  knowing  that  I  must  be  in  the  neighborhood 
of  mental  infirmity,  I  stand  this  day  acquitted  in 
my  own  conscience — (0  that  I  may  be  acquitted 
at  the  bar  of  my  eternal  Judge!) — that  I  have,  to 
the  best  of  my  ability,  with  sincerity  of  heart, 
and  w^ith  the  ardent  desire  to  promote  the  great 
interests  of  the  Church,  and  the  cause  of  God,  in 
the  discharge  of  the  duties  which  you  have  in- 
trusted to  me — I  have  never,  in  the  discharge  of 
this  trust — God  is  my  witness — I  have  never  given 
an  appointment  to  any  preacher  with  a  desire  or 
design  to  afflict  him.  Indeed,  if  I  could  do  it,  I 
should  abhor  myself.  Now,  sir,  whether  this  Con- 
ference is  to  sustain  the  position  on  which  I  have 


3L  E.  Church,  South  287 

acted,  or  not,  they  are  very  soon  to  settle  in  the 
vote  which  is  before  them ;  I  mean,  they  are  to 
settle  this  question,  whether  it  is  the  right  of  this 
body,  and  whether  they  have  the  power  to  depose 
a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ; 
"whether  they  have  a  right  to  depose  my  colleague 
— to  depose  me,  without  a  form  of  trial ;  see  ye 
to  that.  Without  specification  of  wrong,  and  by 
almost  universal  acclamation  over  this  whole  house, 
that  Bishop  Andrew  has  been  unblamable  in  his 
Christian  character;  without  blame  in  his  minis- 
terial vocation ;  that  he  has  discharged  the  duties 
of  his  sacred  office  to  the  Church  of  God  with  in- 
tegrity, w^ith  usefulness,  and  with  almost  universal 
acceptability,  and  in  good  faith ;  with  this  declara- 
tion before  the  community,  before  the  world,  will 
this  Conference  occupy  this  position,  that  they 
have  power,  authority,  to  depose  Bishop  Andrew, 
without  a  form  of  trial,  without  charge,  and  with- 
out being  once  called  on  to  answer  for  himself  in 
the  premises — what  he  did  say  was  voluntary. 

Well,  brethren,  I  had  conceived,  I  had  under- 
stood, from  the  beginning,  that  special  provision 
was  provided  for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop.  The  con- 
stitution has  provided  that  no  preacher,  no  person, 
was  to  be  deprived  of  the  right  of  trial,  according 
to  the  forms  of  Discipline,  and  of  the  right  of  ap- 
peal; but,  sir,  if  I  understand  the  doctrine  ad- 
vanced and  vindicated,  it  is  that  you  may  depose 


288  Organization  of  the 

a  Bishop  Avithout  the  form  of  trial ;  you  may  de- 
pose him  without  any  obligation  to  show  cause, 
and  therefore  he  is  the  only  minister  in  your 
Church  who  has  no  appeal.  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  Church  has  made  special  provision  for  the 
trial  of  the  Bishop,  for  the  special  reason  that  the 
Bishop  has  no  appeal.  Well,  now,  sir,  I  only 
make  these  observations,  as  I  said,  to  the  ear  of 
reason.  You  will  remember  that  this  whole  thing 
is  going  out  before  the  world,  as  well  as  the  Church. 
I  wish  to  know  my  landmarks,  to  find  out  where 
I  stand ;  for  indeed  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  to  you, 
that  if  my  standing,  and  the  relation  in  which  I 
have  been  placed  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  under  my  solemn  vows  of  ordination — if 
my  relation  is  to  stand  on  the  voice  of  a  simple 
majority  of  this  body,  without  a  form  of  trial,  and 
without  an  obligation  even  to  show  me  cause  why 
I  am  deposed,  I  have  some  doubt  whether  there  is 
the  man  on  this  floor  that  would  be  willing  to  stand 
in  my  place.  Now,  brethren  will  at  once  perceive 
the  peculiar  situation  in  which  I  am  placed.  Here 
are  my  brethren  from  the  Ohio  and  other  Confer- 
ences. We  have  been  together  in  great  harmony 
and  peace.  There  has  been  great  union  of  spirit 
everywhere;  but  I  said  at  the  beginning,  there 
were  periods  in  the  history  of  every  man  occupy- 
ing any  important  relation  or  station  in  society, 
when  his  individual  character  and  influence  could 


/ 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  289 

not  be  neutralized  by  the  laws  of  association.  You 
must  unmoor  me  from  my  anchorage  on  the  basis 
of  this  book ;  }'ou  must  unsettle  me  from  my  prin- 
ciples— my  settled  and  fixed  principles.  From 
these  I  cannot  be  shaken  by  any  influences  on  my 
right  hand  or  on  my  left  hand  ;  neither  the  zeal  of 
youth  nor  the  experience  of  hoary  age  shall  move 
me  from  my  principles.  Convince  me  that  I  am 
wrong,  and  I  yield.  And  here  it  may  be  neces- 
sary that  I  should  make  an  observation  in  rea^ard 
to  what  I  have  said  before :  it  seems  to  have  been 
misunderstood.  I  said,  You  may  immolate  me, 
but  you  cannot  immolate  me  on  a  Southern  altar; 
you  cannot  immolate  me  on  a  Northern  altar ;  I 
can  only  be  immolated  on  the  altar  of  the  union 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  What  do  I 
mean  by  this  ?  I  mean — call  it  a  compact — call  it 
compromise,  constitutional  Disciplme,  what  you 
will — I  mean  on  the  doctrines  and  provisions  of 
this  book,  and  I  consider  this  as  the  bond  of  union 
of  the  M.  E.  Church.  Here,  then,  I  plant  my 
feet,  and  here  I  stand.  Let  brethren,  sir,  not  mis- 
understand me  in  another  point ;  a  point  in  which 
they  may  misunderstand  me,  in  which  I  have  been 
misunderstood  ;  and  you  join  me  on  this  point.  I 
hold  that  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  has  an  indisputable  right — con- 
stitutional, sacred  —  to  arraign  at  her  tribunal 
every  Bishop ;  to  try  us  there ;  to  find  us  guilty 


290  Organization  of  the 

of  any  offense  with  which  we  are  charged  on  evi- 
dence, and  to  excommunicate — expel  us.  I  am 
always  ready  to  appear  before  that  body  in  this 
regard.  I  recognize  fully  their  right.  But  not 
for  myself — not  for  these  men  on  my  right  hand, 
and  on  my  left  hand ;  but  for  your  sakes,  and  for 
the  Church  of  God,  of  which  you  are  members  and 
ministers,  let  me  ask  you,  let  me  entreat  you,  not 
to  rush  upon  the  resolution  which  is  now  before 
you.  Posterity,  sir,  will  review  your  actions — 
history  w^ill  record  them ;  and  whatever  we  may 
do  here  will  be  spread  out  before  the  face  of  the 
world ;  the  eyes  of  men  will  be  fixed  upon  it.  In 
this. view  I  was  not  surprised  at  all  to  hear  breth- 
ren say,  "  Pause,  brethren,  I  beseech  you,  pause," 
and  I  was  not  surprised  to  see  men  of  mind  and 
of  thought  approach  the  thing  with  fear  and  trem- 
bling. But  brethren  apprehend  that  there  are 
great  difficulties  involved  in  this  subject ;  they  ap- 
prehend that  fearful  consequences  are  to  take 
place,  on  whichever  side  of  the  question  they  shall 
move.  Pass  it,  and  the  South  sujDpo^  themselves 
involved  in  irretrievable  ruin.  Befuse  to  pass  it, 
and  the  North  consider  the  consequences  perilous 
to  them.  Permit  me  to  say,  sir,  that  I  have  had 
some  acquaintance,  personal  acquaintance,  both 
Avith  the  North  and  the  South;  I  think  I  have 
been  able  to  cast  an  impartial  eye  over  these  great 
departments  of  the  Church.     I  may  err  in  judg- 


M.  E,  Church,  South,  291 

mont,  but  I  apprehend  that  the  difficulties  may 
not  be  as  insurmountable  as  brethren  have  appre- 
hended them  to  be.  I  know  that  some  of  my 
brethren  of  the  North  are  involved  in  such  a  man- 
ner that  I  cannot  apprehend — I  perceive  no  way 
in  which  they  can  compromise  this  question. 
Why?  For  the  obvious  reason  that  it  involves  a 
principle.  I  will  compromise  with  no  man  when 
a  principle  is  involved  in  the  compromise.  What 
is  that  principle  ?  The  men  that  avow  it  are  as 
honest  as  any  men  on  this  floor.  I  know  them; 
in  the  men  there  is  no  guile.  What  is  the  princi- 
ple ?  It  was  advanced  by  my  worthy  Brother 
Cass  the  other  day.  Can  he  compromise  the  prin- 
ciple ?  You  must  convince  him  of  the  error  of 
his  principle  before  he  will  compromise  it.  What 
is  it  ?  It  is  that  slavery,  under  all  circumstances, 
is  a  sin  against  God. 

Mr.  Cass  interposed.  May  I  correct  the  Bishop? 
I  believe  I  did  not  say  so;  I  said  it  was  a  moral 
evil. 

Bishop  Soule  proceeded.  Well,  I  am  glad  to 
be  corrected.  That  is  not  Brother  Cass's  princi- 
ple. A  moral  evil — a  moral  evil,  and  not  a  sin, 
under  all  circumstances.  It  affords  me  a  great 
deal  of  pleasure  to  hear  my  worthy  brother's  state- 
ment, for  it  greatly  increases  my  hope  that  we 
shall  have  a  compromise. 

Now,  sir,  notwithstanding  brethren  have  thought, 


292  Organization  of  the 

and  with  perfect  sincerity,  that  they  were  ready 
to  act  on  the  resolution ;  although  undoubtedly  a 
large  majority  of  this  body  have  been  prepared 
for  it  for  some  time,  I  cannot  but  believe  that  it 
might  be  premature  in  the  Conference  taking  action 
on  it  even  now.  I  will  offer  one  or  two  reasons 
why  I  think  the  Conference  is  not  prepared  for 
action  on  the  resolution.  We  have  been  informed 
here,  from  documents — to  a  great  extent  petitions 
and  memorials — on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  its 
various  aspects  and  interests.  These  documents, 
these  petitions  and  memorials,  have  been  received 
with  the  respect  due  to  the  right  of  petition.  They 
have  been  committed  to  a  large  and  judicious  comr 
mittee  to  examine  and  report.  That  committee 
has  not  reported  to  this  body;  it  will  report;  I 
need  not  say  to  you  that  it  will  report.  The  re- 
spect due  to  some  thousand  petitioners  to  this 
body  will  lay  them  under  solemn  obligation  to  re- 
port; and  is  it  not  possible  that  this  report — on 
the  subject  immediately  connected  with  the  reso- 
lution before  you — may  afford  you  some  light? 
You  will  have  in  the  report  of  that  committee 
several  important  items  of  information  clearly  de- 
veloped before  you.  You  will  know  the  number 
of  the  petitioners,  of  the  memorialists,  in  each  of 
the  Annual  Conferences.  You  will  know  the  rela- 
tive proportion  of  these  petitioners  to  the  whole 
number  of  the   Methodist  Church  within   these 


M.  E.  Church  South.  29 


o 


Conferences.  You  will  know  the  a2;2:recfate  nuni- 
ber  of  all  these  memorialists  and  petitioners,  and 
yoii  will  consequently  know  the  relative  number 
in  regard  to  the  whole  community  of  the  M.  E. 
Church.  It  will  not  be  disputed,  I  think,  on  the 
floor  of  this  General  Conference,  that  the  subjects, 
so  far  as  they  have  been  presented  when  the  me- 
morials were  up,  that  the  subjects  on  which  you 
are  memorialized  in  these  documents  are  not  local. 
They  are  not  subjects  appertaining  specially  and 
exclusively  to  the  memorialists.  So  far  as  I  heard, 
every  subject  was  of  a  general  character,  in  which 
every  member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
East,  West,  North,  and  South,  has  an  equal  in- 
terest and  concern.  The  report  of  your  commit- 
tee may  throw  much  light  on  this  great  subject. 
But  this  is  not  all.  I  beg  to  suggest  to  the  breth- 
ren that  the  views  of  the  great  body  of  the  Meth- 
odist Church,  and  the  great  body  of  her  ministers, 
are  not,  and  cannot  be  represented  here,  in  regard 
to  the  special  point  before  you ;  and  if  this  be  a 
subject  in  which  all  the  ministers  of  the  M.  E. 
Church,  and  all  the  members  of  the  M.  E.  Church- 
have  an  equal  interest  and  concern,  is  it  safe  fo' 
this  body  to  proceed  to  such  an  important  actio: 
in  regard  to  the  w^hole  interests  of  the  Churcl  ^ 
without  having  a  more  fall  development  of  the 
subject,  both  from  ministers  and  Church,  than  the 
memorials  as  yet  presented  afford  ?    I  ask  it.    Nuw 


294  Organization  of  the 

will  the  delegation  from  New  York  tell  us  what 
are  the  views  of  the  great  body  of  the  Methodists 
within  the  New  York  Conference  on  this  subject? 
We  have  been  sitting  here,  Mr.  President,  on  this 
case  almost  from  the  time  we  commenced  it.  It 
has  been,  however,  before  this  community.  It 
has  been  out  before  the  whole  Church,  and  from 
the  views  the  brethren  have  taken,  I  have  been 
almost  surprised  that  w^e  have  not  had  memorials 
from  the  city  where  we  sit;  I  have  been  almost 
surprised  that  we  have  not  had  memorials  from 
the  people  in  Philadelphia,  from  the  people  in  Bal- 
timore, and  from  the  people  in  Boston.  We  have 
had  no  memorials.  There  has  been  no  expression 
on  their  part,  as  I  have  heard ;  and  yet,  in  the 
midst  of  this  enlightened  body  of  Methodists,  are 
we  prepared  thus  to  say  Avhat  is  the  vicAV  of  the 
people  around  us  on  this  question?  and,  under 
such  circumstances,  do  you  hesitate  to  stay  the 
question  in  the  resolution  before  you  ?  I  beg  the 
brethren  to  go  a  little  farther  on  this  subject.  I 
w^ill  go  with  my  brethren  to  Ohio.  Now  I  do  not 
know — I  am  a  resident  in  Ohio,  I  have  some  ac- 
quaintance in  Ohio;  both  with  preachers  and  with 
our  very  excellent  and  worthy  membership  in 
Ohio,  my  brethren  from  them,  these  delegates, 
have  more,  and,  doubtless,  can  say  more — I  should 
not  dare,  on  the  floor  of  this  Conference,  to  say 
that  the  act  would  meet  the  approbation  of  the 


M,  E.  Church,  South,  295 

great  body  of  preachers  and  members  in  Ohio ;  I 
dare  not  say  it.  It  is  sufficient  for  me,  however, 
in  the  present  position 'I  occupy,  to  say  that  the 
Church  has  not  known  the  subject,  and  has  ex- 
pressed no  opinion  on  the  subject  whatsoever.  I 
settle  it  down,  then,  as  the  basis  on  which  I  shall 
proceed,  that  w^e  have  not,  and  cannot  have, 
the  views  of  our  ministers  and  people  generally 
on  this  subject,  so  fully  expressed  to  us  as  to 
others. 

The  adoption  of  that  resolution  deposes  Bishop 
Andrew  w^ithout  form  or  trial ;  such  is  my  deliber- 
ate opinion.  I  do  not  believe  it  is  safe  for  our 
community;  I  do  not  believe  it  is  safe  for  you; 
and  I  am  out  of  this  question.  What  shall  be 
done?  The  question,  I  know,  w^akes  up  the 
attention  of  every  brother.  Can  it  be  possi- 
ble that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  in 
such  a  state  of  excitement — in  such  a  state,  I 
had  almost  said,  of  revolution — as  to  be  unpre- 
pared to  send  out  the  plain,  simple  facts  in  the 
case  to*  the  Churches,  to  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, everywhere  through  our  community,  and 
waive  all  action  on  this  subject  till  another  Gen- 
eral Conference  ? 

I  said,  almost  at  the  commencement  of  these 
remarks,  sir,  that  I  was  not  afraid  of  the  dcUhera- 
lion  of  men,  of  our  Annual  Conferences,  of  the 
General  Conferences — I  am  afraid  of  the  passions 


296  Organization  of  the 

of  merij  and  I  could  present  before  you  some  con- 
siderations to  illustrate  the  views  that  I  have  given 
you ;  and  if  I  give  you  these  views  in  error  of 
judgment;  be  assured  that  they  are  not  views 
wdiich  originate  on  the  spur  of  the  moment ;  they 
are  the  result  of  sober  and  deliberate  investiga- 
tion. Can  it  be  possible  that  the  simple  circum- 
stance of  Bishop  Andrew's  holding  an  office  as  a 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  four 
years  longer,  with  this  statement  of  facts  in  the 
case — simple  facts  in  the  case — spread  out  before 
the  enlightened  body  of  this  great  Methodist  com- 
munity— is  there  to  be  an  earthquake  ?  I  am  not 
prepared  to  believe  it ;  I  soberly  am  not  prepared 
to  believe  it.  Well,  sir,  this  is  the  view  that  I 
take  of  the  subject.  Permit  me  to  make  one  other 
suggestion.  The  providence  of  God  directs  the 
whirhvind  and  the  storm ;  clouds  and  darkness  in- 
deed may  be  round  about  us,  but  righteousness 
and  justice  are  the  habitation  of  his  throne.  Let 
us  be  careful  that  we  never  suifer  a  human  arm  to 
impede  the  operations  of  Providence.  •M}''  be- 
loved colleague,  Bishop  Andrew,  and  myself,  and 
all  my  colleagues,  may  have  passed  away  from 
these  scenes  of  trouble  and  the  passions  which 
now  agitate  the  Church  of  God — may  go  to  sleep, 
in  God's  providence,  long  before  four  years  go  by. 
How  easy  it  is  for  God  to  direct  the  elements 
of  society!     Don't  be  surprised,  then,  brethren, 


31.  E.  Church,  South,  297 

when  I  say  to  you,  Pause.  Brethren  may  possi- 
bly have  a  little  more  light ;  there  may  be  some 
ray  from  heaven  or  earth  yet  to  shine  upon  this 
subject.  Now  it  is  the  solemn  conviction  of  my 
mind  that  the  safest  course  you  can  pursue  in  the 
premises  is  to  pass  this  subject  without  any  impli- 
cation of  Bishop  Andrew's  character  at  all,  and  to 
send  out  officially  the  plain  and  simple  facts  in 
the  case  to  all  your  societies — to  all  your  Confer- 
ences. Let  it  be  read  everywhere,  and  then  we 
may  have  a  farther  expression  of  opinion,  without 
any  kind  of  agitation.  I  am  about  to  take  my 
leave  of  you,  brethren.  You  must  know — you 
cannot  but  know^  that  with  the  principles  I  have 
stated  to  you — with  the  avowal  of  my  sentiments 
in  regard  to  this  subject — it  will  not  be  Bishop 
Andrew  alone  that  your  word  :v\dll  affect !  No, 
sir,  I  implicate  neither  my  colleagues  on  my  right 
hand  nor  on  my  left ;  but  I  say  the  decision  of 
the  question  cannot  affect  Bishop  Andrew  alone. 
I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  it  cannot 
affect  him  alone.  I  mean  specially  in  this  point — 
I  say  that  the  resolution  on  which  we  are  just 
about  to  act  goes  to  sustain  the  doctrine  that  the 
General  Conference  have  power  and  right  to  de- 
pose one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  without  the  form  of  trial — that  you 
are  under  no  obligation  from  the  constitution  or 
laws  of  the  Church  to  show  cause  even.  Now 
13* 


298  Organization  of  the 

every  man  must  see,  and  every  man  must  know, 
that  Bishop  Andrew  cannot  be  involved  alone  in 
the  vote.  It  is  the  principle  which  is  involved. 
It  goes  to  say  that  wdien  this  Conference  shall  vote 
on  the  subject — a  simple  majority  of  this  Confer- 
ence— without  form  of  trial,  can  depose  a  Bishop 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Do  you  un- 
derstand it  so  ?  If  I  am  mistaken,  I  shall  stand 
corrected — and  I  need  not  say  to  this  Conference 
that  such  a  decision  will  involve  others  beside.  It 
involves  the  office ;  it  involves  the  charge ;  it  in- 
volves the  relation  itself. 

And  now,  in  taking  leave,  I  offer  devout  prayer 
to  Almighty  God  that  you  may  be  directed  wisely 
in  the  decision  you  are  about  to  make.  I  have 
given  to  you  wdiat,  in  my  sober  and  deliberate 
judgment,  is  the  best  and  safest  course  which  you 
can  pursue — safest  for  all  concerned.  I  w^ant  that 
opinion  to  have  no  more  influence  upon  you  than 
it  justly  deserves  in  the  Conferences — all  the  Con- 
ferences. I  thank  the  Conference  for  the  atten- 
tion they  have  been  pleased  to  give  me.  I  thank 
the  audience  for  their  attention.  I  very  well  know 
— I  am  not  at  all  unapprised  that  the  position  I  oc- 
cupy— in  which  I  stand  on  the  principles  of  that 
resolution — on  the  principles  involved  in  it — may 
seal  my  fate.  I  say  I  am  not  at  all  unapprised  of 
that.  Let  me  go  ;  but  I  pray  you  hold  to  princi- 
ples— to  principles ;    and  with  these  remarks,  I 


M,  E,  Church,  South.  299 

submit  the  whole  to  your  and  God's  direction. 
(Amen !) 

Dr.  Capers  was  the  last  speaker  on  the  South- 
ern side  who  addressed  the  Conference. 

^^The  first  point  Dr.  Capers  made  was  in  respect 
to  the  unity  of  the  Church.  His  argument  was 
in  substance  this :  Bishop  Andrew  is  under  arrest 
as  a  slaveholder,  because  thereby  he  has  made  it 
impossible  for  himself  to  exercise  in  the  non-slave- 
holding  States  his  Episcopal  functions.  Very 
well.  You  maintain  that  a  General  Conference  is 
the  supreme  power  in  the  Church,  to  which  the 
Bishops  are  subordinate  and  responsible.  How 
absurd  is  the  clamor  against  a  slaveholding  Bishop, 
as  a  contamination  upon  a  part  of  the  Church, 
when  the  General  Conference  itself  includes  slave- 
holders, who  thus,  by  the  very  unity  of  the  Church, 
connect  these  immaculate  Conferences  inextricably 
with  Hhe  great  evil.'  ^Yes,  sir,'  he  said,  *^they 
and  I  are  brethren,  whether  they  will  or  no.  The 
same  holy  hands  have  been  laid  upon  their  heads 
and  upon  my  head.  The  same  vows  which  they 
have  taken,  I  have  taken.  At  the  same  altar  where 
they  minister,  do  I  minister;  and  with  the  same 
words  mutually  on  our  tongues.  We  are  the  same 
ministry,  of  the  same  Church;  not  like,  but  identi- 
cal. Are  they  Elders?  So  am. I.  Spell  the  word. 
There  is  not  a  letter  in  it  which  they  dare  deny 


300  Organization  of  the 

me.  Take  their  measure.  I  am  just  as  high  as  they 
are,  and  they  are  as  low  as  I  am.  We  are  not  one 
ministry  for  the  North,  and  another  ministry  for  the 
South;  but  one,  and  one  only,  for  the  whole  Church.' 

"It  could  not  have  made  his  argument  more 
conclusive  or  irresistible,  had  he  added,  that  by 
virtue  of  this  same  unity  and  connectionalism  of 
the  Church,  he,  a  slaveholder,  had  himself  been 
called  on  by  Northern  as  well  as  Southern  votes  to 
represent  the  entire  American  Methodist  Church, 
a  few  years  previously,  before  the  British  Wes- 
leyan  Conference.  Had  the  lapse  of  these  few 
years  altered  the  immutable  law  of  Christian 
morals,  and  made  that  to  be  wrong  to-day  which 
was  perfectly  right  then? 

"After  a  brief  examination  of  the  new  doctrine 
which  had  been  improvised  to  cover  the  approach- 
ing action,  that,  namely,  which  held  Bishops  to  be 
merely  officers  of  the  General  Conference,  liable  to 
be  set  aside  as  class-leaders,  ^t  the  mere  pleasure 
of  a  majority,  and  showing  what  a  solemn  farce 
the  consecration  service  would  become  on  such  a 
supposition.  Dr.  Capers  went  on  to  exhibit  the 
unconBtitidionality  of  the  contemplated  proceeding. 
He  maintained  that  whatever  else  the  Constitution 
of  the  Church  might  be,  it  must  first  be  Christian, 
and  secondly,  Protestant,  and  thirdly,  consistent 
with  the  great  object  for  which  the  Methodist 
Church  was  raised  up,  to  spread  scriptural  holiness 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  301 

over  these  lands.  In  elaborating  this  last  point,  he 
showed  how  the  proceedings  against  the  Bishop 
must  impede  the  course  of  the  ministry  in  many  of 
the  States,  and  debar  access  altogether  to  large 
portions  of  the  colored  population.  He  was  now 
approaching  a  point  of  view  where,  from  the  very 
office  he  had  held  under  the  General  Conference 
for  the  last  four  years — that  of  Missionary  Secre- 
tary for  the  South — he  was  entitled  to  speak  with 
the  highest  authority.  If  any  man  in  America 
could  be  supposed  to  be  well  informed  on  this  sub- 
ject, Dr.  Capers  was  that  man.  And  w^hat  w^as  his 
testimony?  ^ Never,  never,'  said  he,  Miave  I  suf- 
fered, as  in  view  of  the  evil  which  this  measure 
threatens  against  the  South.  The  agitation  has 
begun  there;  and  I  teU  you  that  though  our  hearts 
were  to  be  torn  from  our  bodies,  it  could  avail 
nothing  when  once  you  have  aw^akened  the  feeling 
that  we  cannot  be  trusted  among  the  slaves.  Once 
you  have  done  this,  you  have  effectually  destroy ed  us, 
I  could  wish  to  die  sooner  than  live  to  see  such  a 
day.  As  sure  as  you  live,  there  are  tens  of  thou- 
sands, nay,  hundreds  of  thousands,  whose  destiny 
may  be  periled  by  your  decision  on  this  case. 
When  we  tell  you  that  w^e  preach  to  a  hundred 
thousand  slaves  in  our  missionary  field,  we  only 
announce  the  beginning  of  our  work — the  begin- 
ning openings  of  the  door  of  access  to  the  most 
numerous  masses  of  slaves  in  the  South.     When 


302  Organization  of  the 

we  add  that  there  are  two  hundred  thousand  now 
"within  our  reach  who  have  no  gospel  unless  we 
give  it  them,  it  is  still  but  the  same  announcement 
of  the  beginnings  of  the  opening  of  that  wide  and 
effectual  door,  wdiich  was  so  long  closed,  and  so 
lately  has  begun  to  be  opened,  for  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel  by  our  ministry,  to  a  numerous  and 
destitute  portion  of  the  people.  0  close  not  this 
door!  Shut  us  not  out  from  this  great  Avork,  to 
wdiich  we  have  been  so  signally  called  of  God.' 

"In  this  strain  he  went  on  to  the  conclusion  of 
his  speech.  Had  it  been  within  the  possibility  of 
human  agency  to  close  or  bridge  the  gulf  of  sepa- 
ration which  yawned  between  the  Northern  and 
Southern  sections  of  the  Church,  this  fervid,  tell- 
ing, and  powerful  appeal  to  the  Christian  prin- 
ciples and  emotions  of  the  majority,  must  have 
done  it.  Were  they  not  the  very  men  by  eminence, 
who  were  clamorins:  about  the  civil  and  social  con- 
dition  of  the  negro  population  of  the  Southern 
States  ?  But  were  they  not,  also,  the  very  preachers 
whose  business  it  was  to  ask  the  question,  'What 
shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he  shall  gain  the  whole 
w^orld,  and  lose  his  own  soul?'  Was  it  possible 
that  these  men  cared  nothins;  for  the  souls  of  the 
negroes?  Swallowed  up,  as  some  of  them  no 
doubt  were,  in  the  abstractions  of  a  fanaticism 
which  was  blind  to  all  spiritual  and  eternal  inter- 
ests, and  hardened  as  some  of  them  possibly  were 


31.  U.  Church,  South.  303 

by  the  hypocritical  cant  of  abolitionisiiij  there  was 
yet  enough  of  sound  Christianity  among  the  major- 
ity of  that  General  Conference  to  feel  the  force  of 
those  considerations — irresistible  to  a  good  man — 
which  in  so  touching  a  style  this  S23eech  had  set  be- 
fore them.  Why,  then,  did  they  carry  out  the  meas- 
ure objected  to  on  such  weighty  considerations? 
The  answer  is,  that  all  considerate  men  among 
them  saw  that  the  time  had  come  for  a  separation. 
They  meant  to  meet  the  emergency  with  a  steady 
determination  to  do  justice  to  the  claims  of  that 
portion  of  the  Church  represented  by  the  minority. 
Subsequent  acts  shoAv  that  they  are  entitled  to  the 
justification  found  alone  in  such  a  determination. 

"Dr.  Few,  of  Georgia,  whose  want  of  health  had 
deprived  the  South  of  his  important  services  as  a 
delegate,  upon  reading  Dr.  Capers's  speech,  made 
the  following  remark:  ^I  would  be  willing  to  risk 
the  wdiole  cause  upon  that  speech  alone,  with 
every  sound-minded,  unprejudiced  man,  although 
he  should  be  required  to  read  all  that  was  said  on 
the  opposite  side.'" 

The  able  speech  of  Dr.  Capers  was  delivered 
on  the  30th  of  May,  immediately  after  which  Dr. 
Peck  suggested  the  propriety  of  bringing  the  de- 
bate to  a  close.  Bishop  Andrew  also  asked  that 
the  question  might  be  taken.     The  motion  for  the 

*  Wightman's  Life  of  Capers,  pp.  403-408. 


304  Organization  of  the 

previous  question  having  failed,  Bishop  Heclding 
then  requested  that  the  Conference  might  not  sit 
this  afternoon,  in  order  that  the  superintendents 
might  have  an  opportunity  to  consult  together 
with  a  view  to  fixing  upon  a  compromise;  and  he 
requested  the  Conference  to  revive  the  committee 
of  Northern  and  Southern  brethren,  discharged 
some  days  since,  that  they  might  meet  the  Bish- 
ops in  council  on  this  important  question. 

Dr.  Durbin  hailed  the  proposition  with  delight, 
but  he  suggested  that  it  would  be  better  in  the 
circumstances  not  to  revive  the  committee.  Let 
the  Bishops  meet  together — Bishop  Andrew  as 
well  as  the  rest — and  let  them  invite  any  brethren 
to  meet  with  them  whom  they  pleased.  He  would 
give  them  plenipotentiary  powers  in  the  case. 
This  suggestion  was  agreed  to. 

Dr.  Olin  then  moved  that  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew  be  deferred  till  to-morrow  morning. 

On  the  31st  of  May,  the  following  address  of 
the  Bishops  was  read  by  Bishop  Waugh : 

To  the  General  Conference  of  the.M.  E.  Church : 

Rev.  and  Dear  Brethren: — The  undersigned  re- 
spectfully and  affectionately  offer  to  your  calm  con- 
sideration the  result  of  their  consultation  this  after- 
noon in  regard  to  the  unpleasant  and  very  delicate 
question  which  has  been  so  long  and  so  earnestly 
debated  before  your  body.     They  have,  with  the 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  305 

liveliest  interest,  watched  the  progress  of  the  dis- 
cussion, and  have  awaited  its  termination  with  the 
deepest  solicitude.  As  they  have  poured  over 
this  subject  with  anxious  thought,  by  day  and  by 
night,  they  have  been  more  and  more  impressed 
with  the  difficulties  connected  therewith,  and  the 
disastrous  results  which,  in  their  apprehension,  are 
the  almost  inevitable  consequences  of  present  ac- 
tion on  the  question  now  pending  before  you.  To 
the  undersigned  it  is  fully  apparent  that  a  decision 
thereon,  whether  affirmatively  or  negatively,  will 
most  extensively  disturb  the  peace  and  harmony 
of  that  widely  extended  brotherhood  which  has 
so  effectively  operated  for  good  in  the  United 
States  of  America  and  elsewhere  during  the  last 
sixty  years,  in  the  development  of  a  system  of 
active  energy,  of  which  union  has  always  been  a 
main  element.  They  have,  with  deep  emotion, 
inquired.  Can  any  thing  be  done  to  avoid  an  evil 
so  much  deprecated  by  every  friend  of  our  com- 
mon Methodism  ?  Long  and  anxiously  have  they 
w^aited  for  a  satisfactory  answer  to  this  inquiry, 
but  they  have  paused  in  vain.  At  this  painful 
crisis  they  have  unanimously  concurred  in  the 
propriety  of  recommending  the  postponement  of 
farther  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  until 
the  ensuing  General  Conference.  It  does  not  enter 
into  the  design  of  the  undersigned  to  argue  the  pro- 
priety of  their  recommendation,  otherwise  strong 


306  Organization  of  ilia 

and  valid  reasons  might  be  adduced  in  its  support. 
They  cannot  but  think  that  if  the  embarrassment 
of  Bishop  Andrew  should  not  cease  before  that 
time,  the  next  General  Conference,  representing 
the  pastors,  ministers,  and  people  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences,  after  all  the  fjicts  in  the  case 
shall  have  passed  in  review  before  them,  will  be 
better  qualified  than  the  present  General  Confer- 
ence can  be  to  adjudicate  the  care  wisely  and  dis- 
creetly. Until  the  cessation  of  the  embarrass- 
ment, or  the  expiration  of  the  interval  between 
the  present  and  the  ensuing  General  Conference, 
the  undersiirned  believe  that  such  a  division  of 
the  work  of  the  general  superintendency  might  be 
made,  without  any  infraction  of  a  constitutional 
principle,  as  would  fully  employ  Bishop  Andrew 
in  those  sections  of  the  Church  in  which  his 
presence  and  services  would  be  welcome  and  cor- 
dial. If  the  course  pursued  on  this  occasion  by 
the  undersijD'ued  be  deemed  a  novel  one,  they  per- 
suade themselves  that  their  justification,  in  the 
view  of  all  candid  and  peace-loving  persons,  w^iU 
be  found  in  their  strong  desire  to  prevent  disunion, 
and  to  promote  harmony  in  the  Church. 

Very  respectfully  and  affectionately  submitted, 

V         Joshua  Soule, 
Elijah  Hedding, 
B.  Waugh, 
T.  A.  Morris. 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  307 

This  address  was  followed  by  remarks  from 
several  members,  among  whom  was  Dr.  Bangs, 
who  proposed  that  it  be  referred  "  to  a  committee 
of  nine,"  which  was  finally  agreed  to. 

On  the  1st  of  June,  Bishop  Iledding  expressed 
a  wish  to  withdraw  his  name  from  the  communi- 
cation presented  by  the  Bishops  on  the  previous 
day,  offering  the  following  reasons  for  this  desire  : 
That  he  signed  the  address  "  as  a  peace  measure," 
and  that  "  he  believed  it  would  be  generally  ac- 
ceptable to  the  Conference,"  but  that  "in  both 
these  expectations  he  was  disappointed."  Bishops 
Wauofh  and  Morris  wished  their  names  to  remain, 
the  former  until  "  he  saw  other  reasons  than  had 
yet  appeared  "  for  an  abandonment  of  the  position 
he  had  taken,  and  the  latter  "  as  a  testimony  that 
he  had  done  wdiat  he  could  to  preserve  the  unity 
of  the  body." 

Bishop  Soule  said  he  "  put  his  signature  to  the 
document  with  the  same  views  and  under  the  same 
convictions  as  his  worthy  colleagues  did,  and 
neither  his  views  nor  his  convictions  were  changed 
in  any  way.  And  he  wished  that  document  to 
go  forth  through  a  thousand  channels  to  the  world. 
It  is  already  before  the  American  people,  and  he 
might  not,  and  would  not,  withdraw  it." 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Bangs,  the  communication 
w^as  laid  on  the  table  by  a  vote  of  95  to  83. 

After  this  vote,  Dr.   Bangs  said  it  was  well 


308  Organization  of  the 

known  that  lie  had  used  every  effort  in  his  power 
to  have  this  matter  brought  to  a  compromise,  and 
he  had  indulged  a  hope  that  this  would  be  the  re- 
sult. It  was  w4th  that  view  that  he  labored  to 
have  this  document  referred  to  a  committee.  But 
from  what  had  been  told  him  by  members  from 
the  North  and  South,  not  a  vestige  of  this  hope 
remained,  and  he  would  now  urge  immediate  ac- 
tion upon  the  substitute,  if  it  was  before  the 
house.  He  believed  wisdom,  and  prudence,  and 
Christianity,  and  brotherly  love,  dictated  that 
course,  and  that  flxrther  discussion  would  not 
change  one  mind. 

Dr.  Winans  said  the  last  speaker  had  referred 
to  the  South,  and  his  remarks  in  their  connection 
went  to  say  that  the  South  were  opposed  to  the 
proposition  from  the  superintendents.  He  begged 
to  say  that  the  Southern  delegates  were  of  one 
mind  to  entertain  the  proposition  of  the  superin- 
tendents. 

Dr.  Bangs  explained  that  he  did  not  mean  to 
say  that  the  South  objected  to  the  proposal  of  the 
Bishops,  but  that  the  Conference  could  not  come 
to  any  general  compromise  on  the  subject.  He 
should  not,  himself,  move  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  Collins  opposed  the  motion  for  taking  up 
the  order  of  the  day.  He  had  not  given  up  all 
hopes  of  peace;  and  if  they  would  wait  a  few 
minutes  and  listen  to  a  proposal  from  Dr.  Durbin, 


M.  E.  ChurcL  South.  309 


he  thought  a  compromise  might  yet  be  effected. 
They  were  bound  to  make  a  settlement  of  the 
question,  he  knew,  but  in  their  proposed  action 
the  Bishops  were  against  them ;  and  if  they  would 
withdraw  their  names  from  the  communication 
they  had  made,  and  allow  Dr.  Durbin  to  use  it  as 
his  own,  he  (Mr.  Collins)  believed  a  plan  of  pacifi- 
cation might  still  be  concocted.  The  proposition 
was,  as  a  last  effort  to  bring  peace  and  save  the 
Church  from  division,  to  add  to  the  suggestion  of 
the  Episcopacy  some  resolutions  expressive  of 
the  regret  of  that  General  Conference  that  Bishop 
Andrew  had  become  connected  with  slavery,  and 
request  him  to  rid  himself  of  the  embarrassment 
as  soon  as  possible;  and,  in  addition,  a  resolution 
to  take  off  the  journals  all  that  related  to  the 
colored  testimony  question.  He  thought  such  a 
measure  would  answer  their  purpose,  and  heal  the 
wound  of  the  Church. 

Mr.  Blake  was  pursuing  his  labors  as  a  minister 
among  the  colored  people,  and  little  thought  that 
the  question  of  slavery  Avould  be  brought  up.  He 
had  no  anticipation  of  a  storm,  but  he  found  that 
the  foundations  of  the  great  deep  were  broken  up, 
and  the  ark  of  their  Church  was  floating  on  the 
waves.  But  he  thanked  God  that  in  the  distance 
he  saw  a  blessed  Ararat.  He  went  on  describing 
the  various  forms  under  which  slavery  had  been 
discussed  in  the  present  Conference,  alluded  to  the 


310  Organizaiion  of  the 

definitions  of  the  Episcopal  oince  during  the  de- 
bate, and  thought  that  Dr.  Durbin's  substitute 
would  not  reconcile  the  difficulties. 

Mr.  Longstreet  said,  as  long  as  there  was  any 
hope  of  reconciliation,  he  would  desire  that  this 
question  be  postponed.  As  yet,  the  South  had 
not  made  one  proposition  to  adjust  the  matter 
amicably.  He  trusted,  therefore,  that  the  door 
would  not  be  closed.  Time  was  a  matter  of  very 
little  consequence  compared  with  the  importance 
of  the  questions  at  issue.  He  wished  to  wait,  and 
see  what  time  would  brine  forth. 

Dr.  Paine  said  he  was  a  man  of  peace.  He 
deeply  regretted  to  hear  unkind  words  from  both 
sides.  He  never  dealt  in  wholesale  denuncia- 
tion. The  South  felt  calm  as  they  could  feel  when 
the  importance  of  the  question  was  considered. 
He  considered  the  substitute  to  be  mandatory.  It 
acted  as  a  mandamus ;  it  had  been  so  described. 
This  placed  the  South  in  an  awkward  position. 
He  hoped  some  ground  would  be  proposed  by  the 
North  that  both  could  occupy.  If  there  was  no 
such  common  ground,  the  South  was  prepared  for 
the  result.  ! 

Mr.  Porter  recalled  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
ference to  the  discussion  of  the  last  fortnight  as 
evidence  of  the  peace-loving  character  of  the 
Northern  members.  They  wanted  to  be  one  body. 
He  did  not  believe  they  could  live  as  one  body 


M.  E.   Church,  South.  311 

with  any  thing  less  than  the  substitute.  He 
asked  what  was  the  prospect  of  peace — Bishop 
Andrew  had  declared  that  he  could  not  recede 
from  his  position,  and  the  South  had  taken  the 
same  ground.  It  was  no  use  to  discuss  the  ques- 
tion farther,  therefore,  but  they  had  better  come 
up  square  to  the  question,  and  decide  the  point  at 
once,  that  the  people  might  be  satisfied. 

Mr.  Mitchell  proposed  an  amendment,  to  be 
appended  to  the  resolution,  to  the  effect  that  the 
Bishop  should  so  resign  until  a  majority  of  the  An- 
nual Conferences  desired  him  to  resume  his  office. 
Mr.  M.  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  enter  into  a 
discussion  whether  the  resolution  respecting  Bishop 
Andrew  was  advisory  or  mandatory.  He  wished 
the  substitute  to  come  before  the  Conference  this 
morning^. 

On  motion,  the  order  of  the  day  was  taken  up. 

Bishop  Soule  said  he  had  good  reason  to  beheve 
that  brethren  had  entertained  erroneous  views 
with  respect  to  the  position  he  occupied  at  the 
time  he  addressed  the  Conference  on  this  subject; 
and  he  now  wished  to  correct  those  views,  that 
there  might  be  a  proper  understanding  in  the  mat- 
ter before  they  had  action  on  the  substitute.  It 
must  have  occurred  to  the  brethren  that  his  re- 
marks at  that  time  were  entirely  irrelevant,  except 
on  the  understanding  that  the  resolution  was  man- 
datory.    He  looked  upon  it  as  suspending  Bishop 


312  Organization  of  the 

Andrew.  Th^re  was  a  great  difference  between 
suspension  and  advice.  If  this  action  was  not  in- 
tended to  be  judicial,  he  should  withdraw  many  of 
his  remarks.  If  it  was  a  mandator}^  act,  it  was 
judicial.  One  member  said  it  was  merely  a  re- 
quest  to  Bishop  Andrew  to  resign;  but  several 
had  declared  it  to  be  judicial,  and  were  not  con- 
tradicted. Again :  the  argument  was,  that  slavery 
could  not  exist  in  the  Episcopacy  of  the  Method- 
ist Church.  One  brother  had  said,  that  if  the 
resolution  passed.  Bishop  Andrew  was  still  a 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  If 
this  was  the  case,  his  remarks,  he  must  repeat, 
were  irrelevant.  He  considered  the  proceeding 
as  a  judicial  one,  suspending  Brother  Andrew  from 
his  duties  as  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

Mr.  J.  T.  Peck  moved  the  previous  (that  is,  the 
main)  question,  which  was  carried.  The  resolu- 
tion was  then  read,  and  the  ayes  and  noes  were 
taken ;  Bishop  Soule  observing,  that  definite  action 
must  necessarily  be  hereafter  taken  to  decide 
whether  the  resolution  was  mandatory  or  advisory. 
The  votes  were  given  amid  the  most  profound  still- 
ness. 

The  resolution  (Mr.  Finley's  substitute)  read  as 
follows : 

"Whereas,  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids 
the  doing  any  thing  calculated  to  destroy  our  itiner- 


M,  E.  Church,  South,  313 

ant  general  superintendency;  and,  whereas,  Bishop 
Andrew  has  become  connected  with  slavery,  by 
marriage  and  otherwise,  and  this  act  having  drawn 
after  it  circumstances  wdiich,  in  the  estimation  of 
the  General  Conference,  will  greatly  embarrass 
the  exercise  of  his  office  as  an  itinerant  general 
superintendent,  if  not,  in  some  places,  entirely 
prevent  it ;  therefore, 

''Resolved.  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General 
Conference  that  he  desist  from  the  exercise  of  this 
office  so  long  as  this  impediment  remains." 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  called  by  delegations, 
were  as  follows  : 

YEAS. 

Neiv  YorJc  Conference:  Nathan  Bangs,  Stephen 
Olin,  Phineas  Rice,  George  Peck,  John  B.  Strat- 
ten,  Peter  P.  Sandford,  Fitch  Reed,  Samuel  D. 
Ferguson,  Stephen  Martindale,  Marvin  Richard- 
son. Troi/:  Truman  Seymour,  John  M.  Wever, 
James  Covel,  jr.,  Tobias  Spicer,  Seymour  Cole- 
man, James  B.  Houghtaling,  Jesse  T.  Peck. 
Providence:  J.  Lovejoy,  F.  Upham,  S.  Benton, 
Paul  Townsend.  Neiv  Ilampshwe :  EKhu  Scott, 
J.  Perkins,  Samuel  Kelly,  S.  Chamberlain,  John 
G.  Dow,  J.  Spaulding,  C.  D.  Cahoon,  William  D. 
Cass.  Neiv  England:  J.  Porter,  D.  S.  King,  P. 
Crandall,  C.  Adams,  G.  Pickering.  Pittsburgh: 
William  Hunter,  H.  J.  Clark,  J.  Spencer,  S.  El- 
14 


o 


14  Organization  of  the 


liott,  E,.  Boyd,  S.  Wakefield,  J.  Drummond. 
3Iaine :  M.  Hill,  E.  Hobinson,  D.  B.  Randall,  C. 
W.  Morse,  J.  Hobart,  Heinan  Nickerson,  G.  Web- 
ber. Black  River:  A.  D.  Peek,  A.  Adams,  G. 
Baker,  W.  W.  Ninde.  Erie:  J.  J.  Steadnian, 
John  Bain,  G.  W.  Clark,  J.  Robinson,  T.  Good- 
win. Oneida :  J.  M.  Snyder,  S.  Comfort,  N. 
Bounds,  D.  A.  Shepherd,  H.  F.  Row,  E.  Bowen, 

D.  Holmes,  jr.  Micliigan :  E.  Crane,  A.  Billings, 
J.  A.  Baughman.  Rock  River:  B.  Weed,  H.  W. 
Reed,  J.  T.  Mitchell.  Genesee:  G.  Fillmore,  S. 
Luckey,  A.  Steele,  F.  G.  Hibbard,  S.  Seager,  A. 
Abell,  W.  Hosmer,  J.  B.  Alverson.     North  Ohio: 

E.  Thompson,  J.  H.  Power,  A.  Poe,  E.  Yocum, 
W.  Runnells.  Illinois :  P.  Akers,  P.  Cartwright. 
Ohio:  C.  Elliott,  William  H.  Raper,  J.  M.  Trim- 
ble, J.  B.  Finley,  L.  L.  Hamline,  Z.  Connell,  J. 
Ferree.  Indiana :  M.  Simpson,  A.  Wiley,  E.  R. 
Ames,  J.  Miller,  C.  W.  Rater,  A.  Wood,  A.  Eddy, 
J.  Havens.  Texas :  J.  Clark.  Baltimore :  J.  A. 
Collins,  A.  Griffith,  J.  Bear,  N.  J.  B.  Morgan, 
J.  Davis.  Philadelphia :  J.  P.  Durbin,  L.  Scott. 
New  Jersey :  I.  Winner,  J.  S.  Porter,  J.  K.  Shaw. 
111. 

NAYS. 

New  York  Conference:  C.  W.  Carpenter.  Michi- 
gan: G.  Smith.  Roch  River:  J.  Sinclair.  Illinois: 
J.  Stamper,  J.  Van  Cleve,  N.  G.  Berryman.  Ken- 
tuchy:  II.  B.  Bascom,  W.  Gunn,  H.  H.  Kavanaugh, 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  315 

E.  Stevenson,  B.  T.  Crouch,  G.  W.  B%sV  Ohio  : 
E.  W.  Sehon.  Rolston :  E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  T. 
Stringfield.  Tennessee:  H.  Paine,  J.  B.  McFerrin, 
A.  L.  P.  Green,  T.  Madclin.  Missouri:  W.  W. 
Kedman,  W.  Patton,  J.  C.  Berry  man,  J.  M.  Jame- 
son. Noiih  Carolina :  J.  Jameson,  Peter  Doub, 
H.  G.  Leigh.  Memphis :  G.  W.  D.  Harris,  S.  S. 
Moody,  William  McMahon,  T.  Joyner.  Arkansas  : 
J.  C.  Parker,  W.  P.  Pvatcliffe,  A.  Hunter.  Vir- 
ginia :  J.  Early,  T.  Crowder,  W.  A.  Smith,  L.  M. 
Lee.  3Iississippi :  William  Winans,  B.  M.  Drake, 
J.  Lane,  G.  M.  Rogers.  Te:t:as :  L.  Fowler.  Ala- 
bama :  J.  Boring,  J.  Hamilton,  William  Murrah, 
G.  Garrett.  Georgia :  G.  F.  Pierce,  W.  J.  Parks, 
L.  Pierce,  J.  W.  Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans,  A.  B.  Long- 
street.  South  Carolina :  William  Capers,  W.  M. 
Wightman,  C.  Betts,  S.  Dunwody,  H.  A.  C. 
Walker.  Baltimore :  H.  Slicer,  J.  A.  Gere,  T.  B. 
Sargent,  C.  B.  Tippett,  G.  Hildt.  Philadelphia: 
T.  J.  Thompson,  H.  White,  W.  Cooper,  I.  T. 
Cooper.  Neio  Jersey:  Thomas  Neal,  Thomas  Sov- 
ereign.    69. 

So  the  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  111 
against  69. 


316  Orgamzation  of  the 


CHAPTER    IV. 

The  effect  of  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  on  the 
Church  in  the  South — Notice  given  bv  Dr.  Pierce  that 
the  Southern  Delegates  would  enter  their  Protest — Reso- 
lutions offered  by  Henry  Slicer — Resolutions  offered  by 
Dr.  Capers — Referred  to  a  Committee — Declaration  of 
the  Southern  Members — Dr.  Elliott  proposes  its  reference 
— Speech  of  Peter  P.  Sandford — Reply  of  Dr.  Longstreet 
— Dr.  Olin's  Remarks — Declaration  referred — Resolution 
of  Instruction  to  the  Committee — Protest  of  the  Minority 
— Communication  from  Bishops  Soule,  Hedding,  Waugh, 
and  Morris — Reply  of  the  Conference — Report  of  the 
Committee  of  Nine — The  Report  discussed — Its  adoption 
— The  Adjournment  of  the  General  Conference. 

The  adoption  of  the  substitute  offered  by  Mr. 
Finley,  virtually  deposing  Bishop  Andrew  from 
the  Episcopal  office,  was  not  unexpected  to  the 
Southern  delegates.  Indeed,  from  the  moment 
when  his  official  character  was  arrested,  they 
apprehended  such  a  result.  Knowing  the  effect 
that  these  extrajudicial  proceedings  would  have  in 
the  South,  they  deemed  it  their  duty  to  the 
Church,  to  the  welfare  and  advancement  of  which 
they  had  consecrated  their  energies  and  their  lives ; 


31.  E,  Church,  SoutL  317 

to  the  African  race  residing  in  the  South,  so 
many  thousands  of  whom  had  been  brought  to 
Christ  through  the  instrumentality  of  Methodism; 
and  to  the  people  among  whom  they  lived  and  la- 
bored, to  manifest  their  disapproval  in  language 
entirely  free  from  ambiguity. 

A  quiet  submission  to  the  action  of  the  General 
Conference,  w-ould  not  only  be  the  price  of  their 
influence  as  ministers  of  the  gospel  of  Christ 
among  the  people  they  served,  but  would  result 
in  the  exile  of  Methodism  from  the  Southern 
States.  Standing  upon  the  New  Testament  basis, 
they  had  preached  to  the  master  and  the  slave, 
teaching  humanity  to  the  former,  and  obedience 
to  the  latter,  and  had  succeeded  in  winning  both 
to  Christ.  The  smiles  of  Heaven  were  resting 
on  their  labors,  and  the  approval  of  the  Almighty 
was  seen  and  felt  in  the  happy  conversion  of 
thousands. 

Immediately  after  the  vote  of  the  Conference 
on  the  substitute.  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce  arose  and 
said: 

It  would  be  within  the  recollection  of  the  mem- 
bers and  spectators  who  had  listened  to  this  dis- 
cussion wdth  so  much  interest,  that,  in  the  event 
of  the  Conference  deciding  upon  the  passage  of 
this  resolution,  the  Southern  delegation  had  de- 
clared that  they  w^ould  enter  their  solemn  protest 


318  Organization  of  the 

against  it,  without  a  dissenting  voice  or  faltering 
step.  They  should,  at  the  earliest  possible  mo- 
ment, do  so,  and  it  should  be  a  manly,  ministerial, 
and  proper  protest  against  this  action  of  the 
Conference,  as  an  extrajudicial  act,  that  their 
sentiments  on  the  subject  might  go  down  to  pos- 
terity. 

He  contended  that,  however  conscientiously — 
and  he  gave  them  full  credit  for  that — they  had 
acted,  still  they  had  acted  contrary  to  the  rule  of 
compromise.  The  constitutionality,  or  otherwise, 
of  their  proceeding  would  probably  be  tried  before 
other  tribunals.  It  had  never  entered  into  his 
heart  in  any  thing  to  depart  from  the  spirit  and 
intention  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  and 
those  who  were  his  brethren  in  the  South  were  of 
the  same  mind.  He  believed  that,  when  the  pub- 
lic mind  had  been  sounded,  and  the  deep  tones  of 
public  opinion  came  pealing  up  from  all  quarters 
of  the  Connection,  there  would  be  a  verdict  in 
favor  of  the  South. 

On  the  3d  of  June,  Mr.  Sheer,  of  Baltimore, 
offered  the  following  resolutions : 

''Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General 
Conference  that  the  vote  of  Saturday  last,  in  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  be  understood  as  advisory 
only,  and  not  in  the  light  of  a  judicial  mandate. 

"Resolved,  2dly,  That  the  final  disposition  of 


31.  K  Church,  South.  319 

Bishop  Andrew's  case  be  postponed  until  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1848,  in  conformity  with  the 
suggestion  of  the  Bishops,  in  their  address  to  the 
Conference  on  Friday,  31st  May. 

"H.  Slicer, 
"T.  B.  Sargent." 

These  resolutions  were  laid  on  the  table  by  a 
vote  of  75  to  68 — the  South  X^oting  unanimously 
against  laying  on  the  table. 

On  the  same  day  Dr.  Capers  offered  the  follow- 
ing resolution: 

''Be  it  resolved  hy  the  delegates  of  all  the  Annual 
Conferences  in  General  Conference  assembled,  That 
w^e  recommend  to  the  Annual  Conferences  to  sus- 
pend the  constitutional  restrictions  which  limit  the 
powers  of  the  General  Conference  so  far,  and  so 
far  only,  as  to  allow  of  the  following  alterations 
in  the  government  of  the  Church,  viz. : 

"1.  That  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in 
these  United  States  and  Territories,  and  the  Re- 
public of  Texas,  shall  constitute  two  General  Con- 
ferences, to  meet  quadrennially,  the  one  at  some 
place  south,  and  the  other  north  of  the  line  which 
now  divides  between  the  States  commonly  desig- 
nated as  free  States  and  those  in  which  slavery 
exists. 

"2.  That  each  of  the  two  General  Conferences 
thus  constituted  shall  have  full  powers,  under  the 
limitations  and  restrictions  which  are  now  of  force 


320  Organization  of  the 

and  binding  on  the  General  Conference,  to  make 
rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church,  within  their 
territorial  limits,  respectively,  and  to  elect  Bishops 
for  the  same. 

"3.  That  the  two  General  Conferences  aforesaid 
shall  severally  have  jurisdiction  as  follows :  The 
Southern  General  Conference  shall  comprehend 
the  States  of  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri, 
and  the  States  and  Territories  lying  southerly 
thereto,  and  also  the  Republic  of  Texas,  to  be 
known  and  designated  by  the  title  of  the  'South- 
ern General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  of  the  United  States.'  And  the 
Northern  General  Conference  to  comprehend  all 
those  States  lying  north  of  the  States  of  Virginia, 
Kentucky,  and  Missouri,  as  above,  to  be  known 
and  designated  by  the  title  of  the  '^Northern  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States.' 

"4.  And  he  it  farther  resolved^  That  as  soon  as 
three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of  all  the  Annual 
Conferences  shall  have  voted  on  these  resolutions, 
and  shall  approve  the  same,  the  said  Southern  and 
Northern  General  Conferences  shall  be  deemed  as 
having  been  constituted  by  such  approval;  and  it 
shall  be  competent  for  the  Southern  Annual  Con- 
ferences to  elect  delegates  to  said  Southern  Gen- 
eral Conference,  to  meet  in  the  city  of  Nashville, 
Tennessee,  on  the  first  of  May,  1848,  or  sooner, 


31.  E.  Church,  South,  821 

if  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
Annual  Conferences  composing  that  General  Con- 
ference shall  desire  the  same. 

"5.  And  be  it  farther  resolved,  as  aforesaid,  That 
the  Book  Concerns  at  New  York  and  Cincinnati 
shall  be  held  and  conducted  as  the  property  and 
for  the  benefit  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  as 
heretofore:  the  Editors  and  Agents  to  be  elected 
once  in  four  years  at  the  time  of  the  session  of 
the  Northern  General  Conference,  and  the  votes 
of  the  Southern  General  Conference  to  be  cast  by 
delegates  of  that  Conference  attending  the  North- 
ern for  that  purpose. 

"6.  And  he  it  farther  resolved,  That  our 
Church  organization  for  foreign  missions  shall 
be  maintained  and  conducted  jointly  between 
the  two  General  Conferences  as  one  Church,  in 
such  manner  as  shall  be  agreed  upon  from  time 
to  time  between  the  two  great  branches  of  the 
Church  as  represented  in  the  said  two  Confer- 
ences." 

Dr.  Bangs  moved  that  the  resolutions  be  re- 
ferred to  a  select  committee,  consisting  of  Messrs. 
Capers,  Winans,  Crowder,  Porter,  Fillmore,  Akers, 
Hamline,  Davis,  and  Sandford.  On  the  5th  of 
June,  Dr.  Capers  announced  "that  they  could  not 
agree  on  a  report  which  they  judged  w^ould  be 
acceptable  to  the  Conference." 

In  the  afternoon  session  of  the  same  day,  Dr. 
14* 


322  Organization  of  the 

Longstreet  presented  the  following  "Declaration 
of  the  Southern  members : " 


"  The  delegates  of  the  Conferences  in  the  slave- 
holding  States  take  leave  to  declare  to  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
that  the  continued  agitation  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  and  abolition  in  a  portion  of  the  Church — 
the  frequent  action  on  that  subject  in  the  General 
Conference — and  especially  the  extrajudicial  pro- 
ceedings against  Bishop  Andrew,  which  resulted, 
on  Saturday  last,  in  the  virtual  suspension  of  him 
from  his  office  as  superintendent — must  produce  a 
state  of  things  in  the  South  which  renders  a  contin- 
uance of  the  jurisdiction  of  that  General  Conference 
over  these  Conferences  inconsistent  with  the  suc- 
cess of  the  ministry  in  the  slaveholding  States." 

Virginia  Conference. — John  Early,  W.  A.  Smith, 
Thomas  Crowder,  Leroy  M.  Lee. 

Keniuchy. — H.  B.  Bascom,  William  Gunn,  H. 
H  Kavanaugh,  Edward  Stevenson,  B.  T.  Crouch, 
G.  W.  Brush. 

Missouri, — W.  W.  Bedman,  William  Patton,  J. 
C.  Berryman,  J.  M.  Jameson. 

Holston. — E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  Thomas 
Stringfield. 

Georgia. — G.  F.  Pierce,  William  J.  Parks,  L. 
Pierce,  J.  W.  Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans,  A.  B.  Long- 
street. 


3L  E.  Church,  SoidL  323 

North  Carolina. — James  Jameson,  Peter  Doub, 
B.  T.  Blake. 

Illinois. — J.  Stamper. 

Memphis. — G.  W.  D.  Harris,  Wm.  McMahon, 
Thomas  Joyner,  S.  S.  Moody. 

Arkansas. — John  C.  Parker,  William  P.  Rat- 
cliffe,  Andrew  Hunter. 

Mississippi. — William  Winans,  B.  M.  Drake, 
John  Lane,  G.  M.  Rogers. 

Texas. — Littleton  Fowler. 

Alabama. — Jesse  Boring,  Jefferson  Hamilton, 
W.  Murrah,  G.  Garrett. 

Tennessee. — Robert  Paine,  John  B.  McFerrin, 
A.  L.  P.  Green,  T.  Maddin. 

South  Ca7'olina. — W.  Capers,  William  M.  Wight- 
man,  Charles  Betts,  S.  Dunwody,  H.  A.  C.  Walker. 

Dr.  Elliott  proposed  the  reference  of  the  paper 
to  a  committee  of  nine. 

Mr.  Sandford  said  he  had  some  objections  to 
that  motion  in  the  present  form  of  the  communi- 
cation just  read.  It  alleged  what  he  presumed 
the  General  Conference  would  not  admit,  that 
there  had  been  extrajudicial  proceedings  against 
Bishop  Andrew.  For  one  he  denied  that  that 
was  the  fact,  and  he  supposed  a  majority  of  the 
Conference  would  coincide  in  that  view  of  the 
matter,  and  he  did  not  see  how^  they  could  allow 
a  paper  to  come  under  their  action  which  alleged 


324  Organkation  of  the 

that  which  they  did  not  believe  to  be  true.  He 
was  aware  that  during  the  discussion  speakers  on 
the  other  side  had  said  this  was  the  case,  but  it  was 
expressly  disavowed  on  the  floor  of  that  Confer- 
ence; and  he  knew  that  the  member  Avho  had 
presented  the  document  now  before  them  had  said, 
just  before  the  vote  was  taken,  that  unless  he 
heard  some  expression  to  the  contrary,  he  should 
take  the  meaning  attached  to  it  by  the  friend- of 
the  mover  as  its  proper  meaning.  He  (Mr.  S.) 
heard  no  response  in  contradiction  to  the  construc- 
tion thus  put  upon  the  resolution.  How  then 
could  it  come  to  pass  that  men  who  heard  this 
avowal  could  now  come  forw^ard  and  say  that  this 
Conference  had  been  guilty  of  an  extrajudicial 
act?  To  him  the  course  taken  appeared  as  a 
direct  insult  to  that  body,  and  such  as  they  should 
not  yield  to.  Let  those  who  had  presented  this 
paper  make  a  communication  according  to  existing 
and  acknowledged  facts,  but  not  asserting  what 
the  General  Conference  denied  to  be  true.  If 
they  thought  the  proposed  course  necessary,  let 
them  say  so  without  adding  insult  thereto,  and  the 
Conference  would  hear  them,  but  he  could  not  con- 
sent to  having  such  a  paper  as  the  present  one 
referred  to  a  committee. 

Mr.  Longs treet  said  he  believed  this  was  the 
third  speech  they  had  had  from  that  brother  on 
the  subject  of  the  sentence,  or  advice,  or  counsel, 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  325 

or  whatever  name  they  choose  to  give  the  action 
on  Saturday  against  the  Bishop,  and  he  had  hoped 
that  in  some  one  of  those  speeches  he  would  have 
told  them  how  he  did  understand  that  action.  He 
(Mr.  L.)  had  striven  to  get  at  it  in  vain.  When 
he  rose  some  days  ago  to  address  the  Conference, 
he  remarked  that  there  was  some  ambiguity  in  the 
form  of  the  resolution,  but  that  the  plain  import 
of  its  language  was,  when  taken  in  connection 
with  the  facts,  mandatory — imperative  was  his 
word — and  that  he  should  thus  understand  it  un- 
less he  was  corrected  by  somebody.  Nobody  did 
correct  him,  nor  did  he  hear,  until  Dr.  Durbin  got 
up,  from  the  lips  of  any  one  that  he  had  misinter- 
preted the  resolution.  After  that  explanation  he 
(Mr.  L.)  said  then,  unless  he  was  corrected  he 
should  understand  it  as  so  explained,  and  nobody 
objected,  so  he  was  at  liberty  to  understand  it 
either  way!  He  could  not  have  conceived  that 
that  Conference  could  have  taken  a  position  so 
strictly  ambiguous.  When  an  explanatory  reso- 
lution on  the  subject  was  introduced  the  other 
day,  Mr.  Sandford  rose  and  said,  that  he  thought 
it  very  plain,  but  he  never  told  us  how  he  viewed 
it.  The  vote  of  this  Conference  against  the  South 
was  then  both  mandatory  and  advisory.  Will 
any  one  dispute  that?  [No  answer.]  Well,  now, 
it  is  not  disputed !  Will  that  brother  tell  us  how 
he  understood  it?     Then  it  appears  to  me  we  are 


326  Organization  of  the 

thrown  back  upon  its  plain  legitimate  terms,  which, 
in  connection  with  the  facts,  make  it  mandatory 
upon  the  Bishop.  Why?  Because  you  substi- 
tuted it  for  the  request,  and  changed  the  terms  to 
'•it  is  the  sense  of  this  Conference,"  etc.  What 
was  the  use  of  the  substitute  unless  it  was  the 
design  of  this  Conference,  which  he  could  not  be- 
lieve, to  have  two  or  three  positions  on  which  each 
man  could  take  his  stand  to  explain  his  views? 
Then,  he  should  maintain,  it  was  a  sentence;  and 
did  their  saying  so  insult  the  Conference?  Now, 
a  judicial  sentence  is  one  in  which  the  tribunal 
having  cognizance  of  the  case  pronounces  its 
judgment  after  due  forms  of  law,  on  the  finding  of 
a  court  or  jury,  after  hearing  all  the  circumstances 
of  the  case.  But  had  there  been  one  single  sen- 
tence in  this  whole  proceeding  which  partakes  of 
a  judicial  proceeding?  Certainly  not.  Then  the 
resolution  was  the  sense  of  the  house  expressed 
extrajudicially. 

Nothing  (said  Mr.  L.)  could  have  been  farther 
from  our  intention  than  to  offer  an  insult  to  this 
body.  We  have  now  the  calmness  of  despair. 
This  has  been  thrown  out  as  an  olive  branch  of 
peace.  It  is  hoped  that  we  can  now  meet  on 
some  common  ground,  for  the  thing  is  done,  and 
the  mischief  is  accomplished,  and  now  we  are  in  a 
situation  to  come  together,  and  viewing  the  wreck, 
see  what  we  can  save  from  it.     We  express  our 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  327 

opinion  that  it  is  no  longer  desirable  that  this 
Conference  should  have  jurisdiction.  This  con- 
tinual harassing  us  on  a  subject  from  which  we 
cannot  escape,  only  brings  us  to  quarrel  with 
each  other.  Now  the  question  is,  whether  we 
cannot  meet  with  something  that  will  harmonize 
us  all.  Let  me  relieve  the  persons  who  present 
that  paper  from  any  intention  to  insult  or  cast  fire- 
brands into  this  Conference.  The  w^ord  objected 
to  is  so  commonly  used  wdth  reference  to  the  re- 
cent action  of  this  Conference,  that  it  has  become 
a  household  word  with  us,  and  I  regret  that  the 
brother  should  so  generally  take  these  verbal  ex- 
ceptions, and  should  exhibit  this  morbid  sensibility 
about  mere  words.  I  regret  that  he  has  not  more 
charity  than  to  suppose  that  the  fifty-two  should 
design  to  insult  the  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight. 

Mr.  Sandford  explained,  that  he  did  not  attrib- 
ute design  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  Longstreet.  Then  it  is  an  insult,  w^hich  the 
fifty-two  had  not  capacity  to  discover. 

At  the  request  of  the  President,  Mr.  Longstreet 
farther  defined  and  illustrated  what  he  conceived 
to  be  meant  by  a  judicial  act.  A  man  must  be 
brought  to  the  judgment  of  a  court  of  some  kind, 
according  to  the  forms  of  law  necessary  to  bring 
him  within  the  range  of  the  judge's  power,  when 
by  due  form  he  is  put  upon  his  trial,  and  the  jury 
or  court,  having  heard  him,  sentence  is  passed 


328  Organization  of  the 

upon  him,  and  such  sentence  I  take  to  be  a  judi- 
cial sentence.  But  if  brought  up  without  any 
precept  having  been  directed  to  him  setting  forth 
the  accusation;  and  if,  without  examination  of 
witnesses,  he  is  made  to  testify  against  himself, 
and  out  of  that  testimony  are  extracted  the 
charges  against  him,  the  prosecutors  being  the 
parties  against  whom  the  alleged  offense  has  been 
committed,  the  prosecutors  trying  him,  and  pro- 
nouncing sentence  without  forms  of  law,  and 
w^ithout  examining  witnesses,  then  it  is  truly  and 
properly  an  extrajudicial  act. 

Dr.  Olin  said  he  would  not  have  supported  the 
substitute  if  he  had  regarded  its  operations  as  judi- 
cial or  punitive.  He  considered  that  Bishop  An- 
drew was  not  punished,  was  not  tried;  that  the 
Conference  did  not  depose  him,  nor  in  the  legal 
meaning  or  consequences  of  the  terms  employed 
in  that  resolution  did  he  consider  that  the  Bishop 
was  in  any  way  disqualified  from  performing  the 
functions  of  his.  office.  His  acts  now  would  not 
be  invalid,  though  constitutionally  he  would  be 
liable  to  appear  before  the  next  General  Confer- 
ence and  answer  for  his  conduct.  He  would  em- 
body his  sentiments  in  the  form  of  resolutions, 
which,  however,  he  would  not  press  upon  the  Con- 
ference. 

'^Resolved,  That  this  Conference  does  not  consider 
its  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  as  either 


31.  F.  Church,  South,  329 

judicial  or  punitive,  but  as  a  prudential  regulation 
for  the  security  and  welfare  of  the  Church. 

'"Resolved,  That  having  made  a  solemn  declara- 
tion of  what,  in  their  judgment,  the  safety  and 
peace  of  the  Church  require,  it  is  not  necessary 
or  proper  to  express  any  opinion  as  to  what 
amount  of  respect  may  justly  belong  to  their  ac- 
tion in  the  premises." 

The  Declaration  was  then  referred  to  a  commit- 
tee of  nine,  consisting  of  Messrs.  Paine,  Fillmore, 
Akers,  Bangs,  Crowder,  Sargent,  Winans,  Hamline, 
and  Porter. 

The  following  resolution  of  instruction  to  the 
committee  was  adopted : 

''Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  take 
into  consideration  the  communication  of  the  dele- 
gates from  the  Southern  Conferences  be  instructed, 
provided  they  cannot  in  their  judgment  devise  a 
plan  for  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the  difficul- 
ties now  existing  in  the  Church,  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  to  devise,  if  possible,  a  constitutional  plan 
for  a  mutual  and  friendly  division  of  the  Church. 

"J.  B.  McFerrin, 
"Tobias  Spicer." 

It  was  apprehended  by  some  of  the  Southern 
delegates  that  the  question  of  jurisdictional  di- 
vision might  be  embarrassed  by  constitutional 
scruples,  and  hence  it  was  moved  by  Mr.  Crowder, 
of  Virginia,  to  amend  the  instruction  by  striking 


330  Organization  of  the 

out  the  word  "constitutional."  This,  however, 
was  defeated,  the  Conference  determining  on  a 
constitutional  division  if  any.  The  committee 
were  to  provide  "  a  constitutional  plan  for  a  mu- 
tual and  friendly  division  of  the  Church,"  j)rovided 
they  cannot,  in  their  judgment,  devise  a  plan  for 
an  amicable  adjustment  of  existing  difficulties. 

On  the  6th  of  June,  Dr.  Henry  B.  Bascom,  of 
Kentucky,  read  the  following  Protest  of  the  Mi- 
nority in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew: 

In  behalf  of  thirteen  Annual  Conferences  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  portions  of 
the  ministry  and  membership  of  several  other 
Conferences,  embracing  nearly  five  thousand  min- 
isters, traveling  and  local,  and  a  membership  of 
nearly  five  hundred  thousand,  constitutionally 
represented  in  this  General  Conference,  we  the 
undersigned,  a  minority  of  the  delegates  of  the 
several  Annual  Conferences  in  General  Conference 
assembled,  after  mature  reflection,  impelled  by 
couAdctions  we  cannot  resist,  and  in  conformity 
with  the  rights  and  usages  of  minorities,  in  the 
instance  of  deliberative  assemblies  and  judicial 
tribunals,  in  similar  circumstances  of  division  and 
disagreement.  Do  most  solemnJf/,  and  in  due  form^ 
protest  against  the  recent  act  of  a  majority  of  this 
General  Conference,  in  an  attempt,  as  understood 
by  the  minoiity,  to  degrade  and  punish  the  Rev. 


/  • 


M.  E,  Church,  South,  331 

James  0.  Andrew,  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  by  declaring  it  to  be 
the  sense  or  judgment  of  the  General  Conference 
that  he  desist  from  the  exercise  of  his  Episcopal 
functions,  without  the  exhibition  of  any  alleged 
offense  against  the  laws  or  disciphne  of  the  Church, 
without  form  of  trial,  or  legal  conviction  of  any 
kind,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  charge  of  w^ant  of 
qualification  or  faithfulness  in  the  performance  of 
the  duties  pertaining  to  his  office. 

We  protest  against  the  act  of  the  majority  in 
the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  as  extrajudicial  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  being  both  without  law  and 
contrary  to  law.  We^jrotest  against  the  act  because 
w^e  recognize  in  this  General  Conference  no  right, 
power,  or  authority,  ministerial,  judicial,  or  ad- 
ministrative, to  suspend  or  depose  a  Bishop  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or  otherwise  subject 
him  to  any  official  disability  whatever,  without  the 
formal  presentation  of  a  charge  or  charges,  alleging 
that  the  Bishop  to  be  dealt  with  has  been  guilty 
of  the  violation  of  some  law,  or  at  least  some  dis- 
ciplinary obligation  of  the  Church,  and  also  upon 
conviction  of  such  charge  after  due  form  of  trial. 
We  protest  against  the  act  in  question  as  a  viola- 
tion of  the  fundamental  law,  usually  known  as  the 
compromise  law  of  the  Church,  on  the  subject  of 
slavery — the  only  law  which  can  be  brought  to 
bear  upon  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  the 


332  Organization  of  the 

assertion  and  maintenance  of  which,  until  it  is 
constitutionally  revoked,  is  guarantied  by  the 
honor  and  good  faith  of  this  body,  as  the  repre- 
sentative assembly  of  the  thirty -three  Annual 
Conferences  known  as  contracting  parties  in  the 
premises. 

And  we  protest  against  the  act  farther y  as  an  at- 
tempt to  establish  a  dangerous  precedent,  subver- 
sive of  the  union  and  stability  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  especially  as  placing  in 
jeopardy  the  General  Superin tendency  of  the 
Church,  by  subjecting  any  Bishop  of  the  Church 
at  any  time  to  the  will  and  caprice  of  a  majority 
of  the  General  Conference,  not  only  without  law, 
but  in  defiance  of  the  restraints  and  provisions  of 
law.  The  undersigned,  a  minority  of  the  General 
Conference,  in  protesting^  as  they  do,  against  the 
late  act  of  the  majority,  in  the  virtual  suspension 
of  Bishop  Andrew,  regard  it  as  due  to  themselves 
and  those  they  represent,  as  well  as  to  the  charac- 
ter and  interests  of  the  Church  at  large,  to  declare, 
by  solemn  and  formal  avowal,  that  after  a  careful 
examination  of  the  entire  subject,  in  all  its  rela- 
tions and  bearings,  they  protest  as  above,  for  the 
reasons  and  upon  the  grounds  following,  viz.,  1st. 
The  proceeding  against  Bishop  Andrew  in  this 
General  Conference  has  been  upon  the  assumption 
that  he  is  connected  with  slavery — that  he  is  the 
legal  holder  and  owner  of  slave  property.    On  the 


M,  E,  Church  South.  333 


subject  of  slavery  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  both  as  it  regards  the  ministry  and  mem- 
bership, we  have  special  law,  upon  which  the  adju- 
dication of  all  questions  of  slavery  must,  by  in- 
tention of  law,  proceed.  The  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  therefore,  presents  a  simple  question  of 
law  and  fact,  and  the  undersigned  cannot  consent 
that  the  force  of  circumstances  and  other  merely 
extrinsic  considerations  shall  be  allowed  to  lead  to 
any  issue,  except  that  indicated  by  the  law  and 
the  facts  in  the  case.  In  the  late  act  of  the  ma- 
jority, law,  express  law,  is  appealed  from,  and 
expediency  in  view  of  circumstances — relative 
propriety — assumed  necessity,  is  substituted  in  its 
place  as  a  rule  of  judgment.  It  is  assumed,  and 
the  assumption  acted  upon,  that  expediency  may 
have  jurisdiction  even  in  the  presence  of  law — 
the  law,  too,  being  special,  and  covering  the  case, 
in  terms.  In  the  absence  of  law,  it  might  be  compe- 
tent for  the  General  Conference  to  act  upon  other 
grounds ;  this  is  not  disputed,  nor  yet  that  it  w^ould 
have  been  competent  for  the  Conference  to  pro- 
ceed upon  the  forms  of  law;  but  that  the  terms 
and  conditions  of  a  special  enactment,  having  all  the 
force  of  a  common  public  charter,  can  be  rightfully 
waived  in  practice,  at  the  promptings  of  a  fugitive 
unsettled  expediency,  is  a  position  the  undersigned 
regard  not  merely  as  erroneous,  but  as  fraught 
with  danger  to  the  best  interest's  of  the  Church. 


334  Organization  of  the 

The  law  of  the  Church  on  shivery  has  always 
existed  smce  1785,  but  especially  since  1804,  and 
in  view  of  the  adjustment  of  the  whole  subject,  in 
1816,  as  a  virtual^  though  informal,  contract  of  mu- 
tual concession  and  forbearance,  between  the  North 
and  the  South,  then,  as  now,  known  and  existing 
as  distinct  parties,  in  relation  to  the  vexed  ques- 
tions of  slavery  and  abolition.  Those  Conferences 
found  in  States  wdiere  slavery  prevailed  consti- 
tuting the  Southern  party,  and  those  in  the  non- 
slaveholding  States  the  Northern,  exceptions  to 
the  rule  being  found  in  both.  The  rights  of  the 
legal  owners  of  slaves,  in  all  the  slaveholding 
States,  are  guarantied  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  by  the  local  Constitutions  of 
the  States  respectively,  as  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land,  to  which  every  minister  and  member  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  w^ithin  the  limits  of 
the  United  States'  government  professes  subjec- 
tion, and  pledges  himself  to  submit,  as  an  article 
of  Christian  faith,  in  the  common  creed  of  the 
Church.  Domestic  slavery,  therefore,  wherever  it 
exists  in  this  country,  is  a  civil  regulation,  exist- 
ing under  the  highest  sanctions  of  constitutional 
and  municipal  law  known  to  the  tribunals  of  the 
country,  and  it  has  always  been  assumed  at  the 
South,  and  relied  upon  as  correct,  that  the  North 
or  non-slaveholding  States  had  no  right,  civil  or 
moral,  to  interfere  with  relations  and  interests 


31.  E.  ChurcJu  Soidh,  335 


tlins  secured  to  the  people  of  the  South  by  all  the 
graver  forms  of  law  and  social  order,  and  that  it 
cannot  be  done  without  an  abuse  of  the  constitu- 
tional rights  of  citizenship.  The  people  of  the 
North,  however,  have  claimed  to  think  differently, 
and  have  uniformly  acted  toward  the  South  in 
accordance  with  such  opposition  of  opinion.  Pre- 
cisely in  accordance,  too,  Avith  this  state  of  things, 
as  it  regards  the  general  population  of  the  North 
and  South,  respectively,  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  has  been  divided  in  opinion  and  feeling  on 
the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition  since  its  or- 
ganization in  1784:  two  separate  and  distinct 
parties  have  always  existed.  The  Southern  Con- 
ferences, in  agreeing  to  the  main  principles  of  the 
compromise  law  in  1804  and  1816,  conceded  by 
express  stipulation  their  right  to  resist  Northern 
interference  in  any  form,  upon  the  condition, 
pledged  by  the  North,  that  while  the  whole  Church, 
by  common  consent,  united  in  proper  effort  for  the 
mitigation  and  final  removal  of  the  evil  of  slavery, 
the  North  was  not  to  interfere,  by  excluding  from 
membership  or  ministerial  office  in  the  Church, 
persons  owning  and  holding  slaves  in  States  where 
emancipation  is  not  practicable,  and  where  the 
liberated  slave  is  not  permitted  to  enjoy  freedom. 
Such  was  the  compact  of  1804  and  1816,  finally 
agreed  to  by  the  parties  after  a  long  and  fearful 
struggle,  and  such  is  the  compact  now^ — the  proof 


S36  Organization  of  the 

being  derived  from  history  and  the  testimony  of 
living  witnesses.  And  is  it  possible  to  suppose 
that  the  original  purpose  and  intended  application 
of  the  law  was  not  designed  to  embrace  every 
member,  minister,  order,  and  office  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church?  Is  the  idea  of  excepted 
cases  allowable  by  fair  construction  of  the  law? 
Do  not  the  reasons  and  intendment  of  the  law 
place  it  beyond  doubt,  that  every  conceivable  case 
of  alleged  misconduct  that  can  arise,  connected 
with  slavery  or  abolition,  is  to  be  subjected  by 
consent  and  contract  of  parties  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  this  great  conservative  arrangement? 

Is  there  any  thing  in  the  law  or  its  reasons 
creating  an  exception  in  the  instance  of  Bishops? 
Would  the  South  have  entered  into  the  arrange- 
ment, or  in  any  form  consented  to  the  law,  had  it 
been  intimated  by  the  North  that  Bishops  must 
be  an  exception  to  the  rule?  Are  the  virtuous 
dead  of  the  North  to  be  slandered  by  the  suppo- 
sition that  they  intended  to  except  Bishops,  and 
thus  accomplished  their  purposes,  in  negotiating 
with  the  South,  by  a  resort  to  deceptive  and  dis- 
honorable means?  If  Bishops  are  not  named,  no 
more  are  Presiding  Elders,  Agents,  Editors — or, 
indeed,  any  other  officers  of  the  Church,  w^ho  are 
nevertheless  included,  although  the  same  rule  of 
construction  would  except  them  also.  The  enact- 
ment was  for  an  entire  people,  East,  West,  North, 


•    M,  E.  Church,  South.  337 

and  South.  It  Avas  for  the  Church,  and  every 
member  of  it — for  the  common  weal  of  the  body 
— and  is,  therefore,  universal  and  unrestricted  in 
its  application ;  and  no  possible  case  can  be  settled 
upon  any  other  principles,  without  a  direct  viola- 
tion of  this  law  both  in  fact  and  form.  The  law 
being  what  we  have  assumed,  any  violation  of  it, 
whatever  may  be  its  form  or  mode,  is  as  certainly 
a  breach  of  good  faith  as  an  infringement  of  law. 
It  must  be  seen,  from  the  manner  in  which  the 
compromise  was  effected,  in  the  shape  of  a  law, 
agreed  to  by  equal  contracting  parties,  "the  sev- 
eral Annual  Conferences,"  after  long  and  formal 
negotiation,  that  it  was  not  a  mere  legislative  en- 
actment, a  simple  decree  of  a  General  Conference, 
but  partakes  of  the  nature  of  a  grave  compact, 
and  is  invested  with  all  the  sacredness  and  sanc- 
tions of  a  solemn  treaty,  binding  respectively  the 
well-known  parties  to  its  term.s  and  stipulations. 
If  this  be  so — and  with  the  evidence  accessible 
who  can  doubt  it? — if  this  be  so,  will  it  prove  a 
light  matter  for  this  General  Conference  to  violate 
or  disregard  the  obligation  of  this  legal  compromise, 
in  the  shape  of  public  recognized  law?  Allow 
that  the  present  parties  in  this  controversy  cannot 
be  brought  to  view  the  subject  of  the  law  in  ques- 
tion in  the  same  light,  can  such  a  matter  end  in  a 
mere  difference  of  opinion,  as  it  respects  the  im- 
mediate parties  ?  The  law  exists  in  the  Discipline 
15 


o 


38  Organization  of  tJie 


of  the  Church.  The  law  is  known,  and  its  reasons 
are  known,  as  equally  binding  upon  both  parties, 
and  what  is  the  likelihood  of  the  imputation  of 
bad  faith  under  the  circumstances?  What  the 
hazard  that  such  imputation,  as  the  decision  of 
public  opinion,  it  may  be  from  a  thousand  tribu- 
nals, will  be  brought  to  bear,  with  all  the  light  and 
force  of  comdction,  upon  any  act  of  this  body,  in 
violation  of  the  plain  provisions  of  long-established 
law,  originating  in  treaty,  and  based  upon  the 
principles  of  conventional  compiwmise? 

In  proportion  to  our  love  of  truth,  of  law,  and 
order,  are  we  not  called  upon  to  pause  and  weigh 
well  the  hazard,  before,  as  a  General  Conference, 
we  incur  it  beyond  change  or  remedy?  The  un- 
dersigned have  long  looked  to  the  great  conserva- 
tive law  of  the  Discipline,  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
and  abolition,  as  the  only  charter  of  connectional 
unin  between  the  North  and  the  South;  and 
whenever  this  bond  of  connection  is  rendered  null 
and  void,  no  matter  in  what  form,  or  by  what 
means,  they  are  compelled  to  regard  the  Church, 
to  every  practical  purpose,  as  already  divided, 
without  the  intervention  of  any  other  agency. 
By  how  far,  therefore,  they  look  upon  the  union 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  essential  to 
its  prosperity,  and  the  glory  and  success  of  Amer- 
ican Methodism,  by  so  far  they  are  bound  to  pro- 
test against  the  late  act  of  the  General  Conference, 


i¥.  E.  Church,  South.  339 

in  the  irregular  suspension  of  Bishop  Andrew,  as 
not  only  without  law,  but  in  direct  contravention 
of  legal  stipulations  known  to  be  essential  to  the 
unity  of  the  Church.  And  they  are  thus  explicit 
in  a  statement  of  facts,  that  the  responsibility  of 
division  may  attach  where,  ia  justice,  it  belongs. 
The  minority,  making  this  protest,  are  perfectly 
satisfied  with  the  law  of  the  Church  affecting 
slavery  and  abolition.  They  ask  no  change.  They 
need — they  seek  no  indulgence  in  behalf  of  the 
South.  Had  Bishop  Andrew  been  suspended 
according  to  law,  after  due  form  of  trial,  they 
would  have  submitted  without  remonstrance,  as 
the  friends  of  law  and  order. 

The?/  except  and  p^oted,  farther,  against  the  law- 
less procedure,  as  they  think,  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  because  apart  from  the  injustice  done 
him  and  the  South  by  the  act,  other  and  graver 
difficulties,  necessarily  incidental  to  this  move- 
ment, come  in  for  a  share  of  attention.  The 
whole  subject  is,  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 
resolved  into  a  single  original  question:  Will  the 
General  Conference  adhere  to,  and  in  good  faith 
assert  and  maintain,  the  compromise  law  of  the 
Church  on  the  vexed  question  dividing  us,  or  will 
it  be  found  expedient  generally,  as  in  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew,  to  lay  it  aside  and  tread  it  under 
foot?  No  question  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and 
abolition  can  be  settled  until  the  General  Confer- 


3-40  Organization  of  the 

ence  shall  settle  this  beyond  the  possibility  of 
evasion.  In  the  present  crisisj  it  is  the  opinion  of 
the  undersigned  that  every  Bishop  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  and  every  member  of  this 
General  Conference,  is  especially  called  upon,  by 
all  the  responsibilities  of  truth  and  honor,  to  de- 
clare himself  upon  the  subject;  and  they  deem  it 
proper  respectfully  and  urgently  to  make  .such 
call  a  part  of  this  protest.  When  so  much  de- 
pends upon  it,  can  the  General  Conference,  as  the 
organ  of  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Church, 
remain  silent  without  incurring  the  charge  of 
trifling  both  "with  its  interests  and  reputation? 
Law  always  pjledges  the  pubhc  faith  of  the  body 
ostensibly  governed  by  it  to  the  faithful  assertion 
and  performance  of  its  stipulations;  and  the  com- 
promise law  of  the  Discipline,  partaking,  as  it 
does,  of  the  nature  of  the  law  of  treaty,  and  em- 
bracing, as  has  been  seen,  all  possible  cases,  pledges 
the  good  faith  of  every  minister  and  member  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  against  saying  or 
doino^  any  thino:  tendinfr  to  annul  the  force  or 
thwart  the  purposes  of  its  enactment.  The  only 
allowable  remedy  of  those  who  object  to  the  law  is 
to  seek  a  constitutional  chansre  of  the  law,  and  in 
failure,  to  submit,  or  else  retire  from  the  Church. 
All  attempts  to  resist,  evade,  or  defeat  the  objects 
and  intended  application  of  the  law,  until  duly 
revoked,  must  be  regarded  as  unjust  and  revolu- 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  341 

tionary,  because  an  invasion  of  well-defined  con- 
ventional right.  And  the  undersigned  except  to 
the  course  of  the  majority,  in  the  informal  prose- 
cution of  Bishop  Andrew  and  the  anomalous  quasi 
suspension  it  inflicts,  as  not  only  giving  to  the 
compromise  a  construction  rendering  it  entirely 
ineffective,  but  as  being  directly  subversive  of  the 
fifreat  bond  of  union  which  has  held  the  North  and 
South  together  for  the  last  forty  years.  Turning 
to  the  confederating  Annual  Conferences  of  1804, 
and  the  vexed  and  protracted  negotiations  which 
preceded  the  General  Conference  of  that  year,  and 
finally  resulted  in  the  existing  law  of  the  Disci- 
pline, regulating  the  whole  subject,  and  glancing  at 
nearly  half  a  million  of  Methodists,  now  in  the 
South,  who  have  come  into  the  Church  with  all 
their  hopes  and  fears,  interests  and  associations,' 
their  property,  character,  and  influence,  reposing 
in  safety  upon  the  publicly-pledged  faith  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  only  to  be  told  that 
this  is  all  a  dream,  that  a  part  of  what  was 
pledged  was  never  intended  to  be  allowed,  and  that 
the  whole  is  at  all  times  subject  to  the  discretion 
of  a  dominant  majority,  claiming,  in  matter  of 
right,  to  be  without  and  above  law,  competent  not 
merely  to  make  all  rules  and  regulations  for  the 
proper  government  of  the  Church,  but  to  govern 
the  Church  without  rule  or  regulation,  and  punish 
and  degrade  without  even  the  alleged  infringement 


342  Organkation  of  the 

of  law,  or  the  form  of  trial,  if  it  be  thought  ex- 
pedient, presents  a  state  of  things  filling  the  un- 
dersigned with  alarm  and  dismay.  Such  views 
and  facts,  without  adducing  others,  will  perhaps 
be  sufficient  to  show  the  first  and  principal  ground 
occupied  by  the  minority  in  the  protest.  They 
cannot  resist  the  conviction  that  the  majority  have 
failed  to  redeem  the  pledge  of  public  law^  given  to 
the  Church  and  the  world  by  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church. 

2d.  The  undersigned  are  aware  that  it  is  affirmed 
by  some  of  the  majority,  but  meanwhile  denied 
by  others,  and  thus  a  mooted,  unsettled  question 
among  themselves,  that  the  resolution  censuring 
and  virtually  suspending  Bishop  Andrew,  as  un- 
derstood by  the  minority,  is  mere  matter  of  ad- 
vice or  recommendation;  but,  so  far  from  advising 
or  recommending  any  thing,  the  language  of  the 
resolution,  by  fair  and  necessary  construction,  is 
imperative  and  mandatory  in  form,  and,  unquali- 
fied by  any  thing  in  the  resolution  itself,  or  in  the 
preamble  explaining  it,  conveys  the  idea  plainly 
and  most  explicitly,  that  it  is  the  judgment  and 
will  of  the  Conference  that  Bishop  Andrew  shall 
cease  to  exercise  the  office  of  Bishop  until  he 
shall  cease  to  be  the  owner  of  slaves.  ''Resolved, 
That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Conference  that  he 
desist."  That  is,  having  rendered  himself  unac- 
ceptable to  the  majority,  it  is  their  judgment  that 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  343 

he  retire  from  the  bench  of  Bishops,  and  their  field 
of  action. 

No  idea  of  request,  advice,  or  recommendation 
is  conveyed  by  the  language  of  the  preamble  or 
resolution;  and  the  recent  avowal  of  an  intention 
to  advise  is,  in  the  judgment  of  the  undersigned, 
disowned  by  the  very  terms  in  which,  it  is  said, 
the  advice  was  given.  The  whole  argument  of  the 
majority,  during  a  debate  of  twelve  days,  turned 
upon  the  right  of  the  Conference  to  displace  Bishop 
Andrew  without  resort  to  formal  trial.  No  one  ques- 
tioned the  legal  right  of  the  Conference  to  advise; 
and  if  this  only  was  intended,  w^hy  the  protracted 
debate  upon  the  subject?  But  farther,  a  resolu- 
tion, respectfully  and  affectionately  requesting  the 
Bishop  to  resign,  had  been  laid  aside,  to  entertain 
the  substitute  under  notice;  a  motion,  too,  to  declare 
the  resolution  advisory,  was  promptly  rejected  by 
the  majority;  and  in  view  of  all  these  facts,  and 
the  entire  proceedings  of  the  majority  in  the  case, 
the  undersigned  have  been  compelled  to  consider 
the  resolution  as  a  mandatory  judgment,  to  the 
effect  that  Bishop  Andrew  desist  from  the  exercise 
of  his  Episcopal  functions.  If  the  majority  have 
been  misunderstood,  the  language  of  their  own 
resolution,  and  the  position  they  occupied  in  de- 
bate, have  led  to  the  misconception;  and  truth  and 
honor,  not  less  than  a  most  unfortunate  use  of  lan- 
guage, require  that  they  explain  themselves. 


344  Organization  of  the 

3d.  We  except  to  the  act  of  the  majority,  be- 
cause it  is  assumed  that  conscience  and  principle 
are  involved,  and  require  the  act  complained  of,  as 
expedient  and  necessary  under  the  circumstances. 
Bishop  A.  being  protected  by  the  law  of  the 
Church  having  cognizance  of  all  offenses  connected 
with  slavery,  such  connection  in  his  case,  in  the 
judgment  of  all  jurisprudence,  can  only  be  wrong 
in  the  proportion  that  the  law  is  bad  and  defective. 
It  is  not  conceived  bv  the  mhioritv,  how  conscience 
and  principle  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  Bishop 
A.,  and  not  upon  the  latv,  and  the  Church  having 
such  law.  They  are  obliged  to  beheve  that  the 
law  and  the  source  from  which  it  emanates  must 
become  the  object  of  exception  and  censure  before 
Bishop  A.,  who  has  not  offended  against  either, 
unless  the  Church  is  against  the  law,  can  be  sub- 
jected to  trial,  at  the  bar  of  the  conscience  and 
principles  of  men  who  profess  subjection  and  ap- 
proval, in  the  instance  both  of  the  law  and  the 
Church. 

The  undersigned  can  never  consent,  w^hile  we 
have  a  plain  law,  obviously  covering  an  assumed 
offense,  that  the  offense  shall  be  taken,  under  plea 
of  principle,  out  of  the  hands  of  the  law,  and  be 
resubjected  to  the  conflicting  opinions  and  passions 
which  originally  led  to  a  resort  to  law,  as  the  only 
safe  standard  of  judgment.  They  do  not  under- 
stand  how  conscience  and  principle   can   attach 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  345 

grave  blame  tc  action  not  disapproved  by  the  law 
— express  law,  too,  made  and  provided  in  the  case 
— \vithout  extending  condemnation  to  the  law 
itself,  and  the  body  from  which  it  proceeds.  The 
Church  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  have  settled 
policy  and  invariable  custom,  in  contravention  of 
law;  the  avowal  of  such  custom  and  policy,  there- 
fore, excluding  from  the  Episcopacy  any  and  every 
man,  in  any  way  connected  with  slavery,  is  mere 
assumption.  No  contract,  agreement,  decree,  or 
purpose  of  this  kind,  is  on  record,  or  ever  existed. 
No  such  exaction,  in  terms  or  by  implication,  was 
ever  made  by  the  North  or  conceded  by  the  South. 
No  conventional  understanding  ever  existed  to 
this  effect,  so  far  as  the  South  is  concerned,  or 
has  been  informed.  That  it  has  long,  perhaps 
always,  been  the  purpose  of  the  North  not  to  elect 
a  slaveholder  to  the  office  of  Bishop,  is  admitted. 
But  as  no  law  gave  countenance  to  any  thing  of 
the  kind,  the  South  regarded  it  as  a  mere  matter 
of  social  injustice,  and  was  not  disposed  to  com- 
plain. The  North  has  always  found  its  security 
in  numbers,  and  the  un trammeled  right  of  suffrage, 
and  to  this  the  South  has  not  objected.  The  as- 
sumption, however,  is  entirely  different,  and  is 
not  admitted  by  the  South,  but  is  plainly  negatived 
by  the  law  and  language  of  the  Discipline,  as  ex- 
plained by  authority  of  the  General  Conference. 
No  such  concession,  beyond  peaceable  submis- 
15* 


346  Organization  of  the 

sion  to  the  right  of  suffrage,  exercised  by  the 
majority,  will  ever  be  submitted  to  by  the  South, 
as  it  would  amount  to  denial  of  equal  abstract 
right,  and  a,  disfranchisement  of  the  Southern  min- 
istry, and  could  not  be  submitted  to  without  in- 
jury and  degradation.  If,  then,  the  North  is  not 
satisfied  with  the  ne^xatiA^e  riiiht  conceded  to  the 
South  by  law  in  this  matter,  the  minority  would 
be  glad  to  know  what  princijjle  or  iwlicy  is  likely 
to  introduce  beyond  the  existing  provisions  of  law. 
As  the  contingency  which  has  occasioned  the  dif- 
ficulty in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  to  which 
every  Southern  minister  is  liable  at  any  time,  does 
not  and  cannot  fall  under  condemnation  of  existing 
law,  and  he  cannot  be  punished,  nor  yet  subjected 
to  any  official  disability,  without  an  abuse  of  both 
right  and  power,  on  the  part  of  this  General  Con- 
ference, the  minority  are  compelled  to  think  that 
the  majority  ought  to  be  satisfied  with  the  con- 
sciousness and  declaration,  that  they  are  in  no 
way  responsible  for  the  contingency,  and  thus,  at 
least,  allow  Bishop  Andrew  the  benefit  of  their 
own  legislation,  until  they  see  proper  to  change  it. 
This  attempt  by  the  majority  to  protect  a  lawless 
prosecution  from  merited  rebuke,  by  an  appeal  to 
conscience  and  principle,  condemning  Bishop  An- 
drew, while  the  law  and  the  Church,  shielding  him 
from  the  assault,  are  not  objected  to,  is  looked 
upon  by  the  minority  as  a  species  of  moral,  we 


M.  E,  Clmrclu  South.  347 


will  not  say  legal  casuistry,  utterly  subversive  of 
all  the  principles  of  order  and  good  government. 

4tli.  The  act  of  the  majority  was  ostensibly  re- 
sorted to  because,  as  alleged,  the  Church  in  the 
Middle  and  N^orthern  Conferences  will  not  submit 
to  any,  the  slightest,  connection  with  slavery.  But 
if  connection  with  slavery  is  ruinous  to  the  Church 
in  the  North,  that  ruin  is  already  wrought.  Who 
does  not  know  that  the  very  Discipline,  laws,  and 
legislation  of  the  Church  necessarily  connect  us 
all  with  slavery?  All  our  provisional  legislation 
on  the  subject  has  proceeded  on  the  assumption 
that  slavery  is  an  element  of  society — a  principle 
of  action — a  household  reality  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  It  is  part 
and  parcel  of  the  economy  of  American  Method- 
ism, in  every  subjective  sense.  It  has  given  birth 
to  law  and  right,  conventional  arrangements,  nu- 
merous missions,  and  official  trusts.  Every  Bishop, 
every  minister,  every  member  of  the  Church,  is  of 
necessity  connected  with  slavery.  Each  is  brother 
and  co-member,  both  with  slave  and  master,  by  the 
very  laws  and  organization  of  the  Church. 

If,  then,  connection  with  slavery  is  so  disas- 
trous, the  only  remedy  is  to  purify  the  Church  by 
reorganization,  or  get  out  of  it  as  soon  as  possible. 
And  would  not  this  aversion  to  slavery — would 
not  conscience  and  principle,  so  much  pleaded-  in 
this  controversy — appear  much  more  consistent  in 


348  Organization  of  the 

every  view  of  the  subject,  in  striking  at  the  root 
of  the  evil,  in  the  organic  structure  of  the  Church, 
than  in  seeking  its  personification  in  Bishop  An- 
drew, protected  although  he  be  by  the  law,  and 
proceeding  to  punish  him,  by  way  of  calling  oif 
attention  from  the  known  toleration  of  the  same 
thing,  in  other  aspects  and  relations  ? 

Impelled  by  conscience  and  principle  to  the  il- 
legal arrest  of  a  Bishop,  because  he  has  incident- 
ally, by  bequest,  inheritance,  and  marriage,  come 
into  possession  of  slave  property,  in  no  instance 
intending  to  possess  himself  of  such  property,  how 
long  will  conscience  and  principle  leave  other  min- 
isters, or  even  lay  members,  undisturbed,  who 
may  happen  to  be  in  the  same  category  with 
Bishop  Andrew  ?  Will  assurances  be  given  tha.t 
the  lawlessness  of  expediency,  controlled,  as  in 
such  case  it  must  be,  by  prejudice  and  passion, 
will  extend  no  farther — that  there  shall  be  no 
farther  curtailment  of  right  as  it  regards  the  South- 
ern ministry?  Yet  what  is  the  security  of  the 
South  in  the  case  ?  Is  the  public  faith  of  this 
body,  as  instanced  in  the  recent  violations  of  the 
compromise-law,  to  be  relied  upon  as  the  guarantee 
for  the  redemption  of  the  pledge  ?  What  would 
such  pledge  or  assurance  be  but  to  remind  the 
South  that  any  departure  at  all  from  the  great 
conservative  pledge  of  law,  to  which  we  appeal, 
was  much  more  effectually  guarded  against  origi- 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  349 

nally,  than  it  is  possible  to  guard  against  any  sub- 
sequent infringement,  and  to  make  the  South  feel 
farther  that  disappointment  in  the  first  instance 
must  compel  distrust  with  regard  to  the  future  ? 
The  Church  having  specific  law  on  the  subject,  all 
questions  involving  slavery  must  inevitably,  by 
intention  of  law,  come  within  the  purview  of  such 
special  provision,  and  cannot  be  judged  of  by  any 
other  law  or  standard,  without  a  most  daring  de- 
parture from  all  the  rules  and  sobrieties  of  judi- 
cial procedure,  and  the  undersigned  accordingly 
except  to  the  action  of  the  majority  in  relation  to 
Bishop  Andrew,  as  not  only  without  sanction  of 
law,  but  in  conflict  wdth  rights  created  by  law. 

5th.  As  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  now 
organized,  and  according  to  its  organization  since 
1784,  the  Episcopacy  is  a  coordinate  branch,  the 
executive  department  proper  of  the  government. 
A  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is 
not  a  mere  creature — is  in  no  prominent  sense  an 
officer — of  the  General  Conference.  The  General 
Conference,  as  such,  cannot  constitute  a  Bishop. 
It  is  true  the  Annual  Conferences  select  the  Bish- 
ops of  the  Church  by  the  suffrage  of  their  dele- 
gates, in  General  Conference  assembled ;  but  the 
General  Conference,  in  its  capacity  of  a  represent- 
ative body,  or  any  other  in  which  it  exists,  does 
not  possess  the  power  of  ordination,  without  which 
a  Bishop  cannot  be  constituted. 


o  r 


50  Organization  of  the 

The  Bishops  are,  beyond  a  doubt,  an  integral 
constituent  part  of  the  General  Conference,  made 
such  by  law  and  the  constitution;  and  because 
elected  by  the  General  Conference,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  they  are  subject  to  the  will  of  that  body, 
except  in  conformity  Avith  legal  right  and  the  pro- 
visions of  law,  in  the  premises.  In  this  sense, 
and  so  viewed,  they  are  subject  to  the  General 
Conference,  and  this  is  sufficient  limitation  of  their 
power,  unless  the  government  itself  is  to  be  con- 
sidered irregular  and  unbalanced  in  the  coordinate 
relations  of  its  parts.  In  a  sense  by  no  means  un- 
important, the  General  Conference  is  as  much  the 
creature  of  the  Episcopacy,  as  the  Bishops  are 
the  creatures  of  the  General  Conference.  Consti- 
tutionally, the  Bishops  alone  have  the  right  to  fix 
the  time  of  holding  the  Annual  Conferences ;  and 
should  they  refuse  or  neglect  to  do  so,  no  Annual 
Conference  could  meet  according  to  law,  and,  by 
consequence,  no  delegates  could  be  chosen,  and 
no  General  Conference  could  be  chosen,  or  even 
exist.  And  because  this  is  so,  what  would  be 
thought  of  the  impertinent  pretension,  should  the 
Episcopacy  claim  that  the  General  Conference  is 
the  mere  creature  of  their  will  ?  As  executive  offi- 
cers as  well  as  pastoral  overseers^  the  Bishops  be- 
long to  the  Church  as  such,  and  not  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  as  one  of  its  counsels  or  organs 
of  action  merely. 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  351 

The  General  Conference  is  in  no  sense  the 
Church,  not  even  representatively.  It  is  merely 
the  representative  organ  of  the  Church,  with  lim- 
ited powers  to  do  its  business,  in  the  discharge  of 
a  delegated  trust. 

Because  Bishops  are  in  part  constituted  by  the 
General  Conference,  the  power  of  removal  does 
not  follow.  Episcopacy  even  in  the  Methodist 
Church  is  not  a  mere  appointment  to  labor.  It  is 
an  official  consecrated  station  under  the  protection 
of  law,  and  can  only  be  dangerous  as  the  law  is 
bad  or  the  Church  corrupt.  The  power  to  appoint 
does  not  necessarily  involve  the  power  to  remove; 
and  w^hen  the  appointing  power  is  derivative,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  General  Conference,  the  power 
of  removal  does  not  accrue  at  all,  unless  by  con- 
sent of  the  coordinate  branches  of  the  government, 
expressed  by  law,  made  and  provided  in  the  case. 
When  the  Legislature  of  a  State — to  appeal  to 
analogy  for  illustration — appoints  a  judge,  or  sen- 
ator in  Congress,  does  the  judge  or  senator  thereby 
become  the  officer  or  creature  of  the  Legislature? 
or  is  he  the  officer  or  senatorial  representative  of 
the  State  of  which  the  Legislature  is  the  mere 
organ?  And  does  the  power  of  removal  follow 
that  appointment?  The  answer  is  negative  in 
both  cases,  and  applies  equally  to  the  Bishops  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  who,  instead  of 
being  the  officers  and  creatures  of  the  General  Con* 


352  Organization  of  the 

ference,  are  de  facto  the  officers  and  servants  of  the 
Church,  chosen  by  the  General  Conference,  as  its  or- 
gan of  action,  and  no  right  of  remoA^  al  accrues,  ex- 
cept as  they  fail  to  accomplish  the  aims  of  the  Church 
in  their  appointment,  and  then  only  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  law.  But  when  a  Bishop 
is  suspended,  or  informed  that  it  is  the  wish  or  will 
of  the  General  Conference  that  he  cease  to  per- 
form the  functions  of  Bishop,  for  doing  what  the 
law  of  the  same  body  allows  him  to  do,  and  of 
course  without  incurring  the  hazard  of  punish- 
ment, or  even  blame,  then  the  whole  procedure 
becomes  an  outrage  upon  justice,  as  well  as  law. 

The  assumption  of  power  by  the  General  Con- 
ference beyond  the  warrant  of  law,  to  which  we 
object,  and  against  which  we  protest,  will  lead,  if 
carried  into  practice,  to  a  direct  violation  of  one 
of  the  restrictive  rules  of  the  constitution.  Sup- 
pose it  had  been  the  "  sense"  of  this  General  Con- 
ference, when  the  late  communication  from  the 
Bishops  was  respectfully  submitted  to  the  Confer- 
ence, that  such  communication  was  an  interference 
with  their  rights  and  duties — an  attempt  to  tam- 
per with  the  purity  and  independence,  and  there- 
fore an  outrage  upon  the  claims  and  dignity,  of  the 
Conference  not  to  be  borne  with.  And,  proceed- 
ing a  step  farther,  suppose  it  had  been  the  "sense" 
of  the  Conference  that  they  all  desist  from  per- 
forming the  functions  of  Bishops  until  the  "im- 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  353 

pediment"  of  such  offense  had  been  removed — as- 
sume this,  (and,  so  far  as  mere  law  is  concerned, 
no  law  being  violated  in  either  case,  it  was  just  as 
likely  as  the  movement  against  Bishop  Andrew,) 
and  had  it  taken  place,  what  had  become  of  the 
general  superintendency?  If  a  Bishop  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  may,  without  law, 
and  at  the  instance  of  mere  party  expediency,  be 
suspended  from  the  exercise  of  the  appropriate 
functions  of  his  office,  for  one  act,  he  may  for  an- 
other. Admit  this  doctrine,  and  by  what  tenure 
do  the  Bishops  hold  office  ?  One  thing  is  certain, 
whatever  other  tenure  there  may  be,  they  do  not 
hold  office  according  to  laiv. 

The  provisions  of  law  and  the  faithful  perform- 
ance of  duty,  upon  this  theory  of  official  tenure, 
afford  no  security.  Admit  this  claim  of  absolut- 
ism, as  regards  right  and  power  on  the  part  of  the 
General  Conference,  and  the  Bishops  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  are  slaves,  and  the  men 
constituting  this  body  their  masters  and  holders. 
They  are  in  office  only  at  the  discretion  of  a  ma- 
jority of  the  General  Conference,  without  the  re- 
straints or  protection  of  law.  Both  the  law  and 
themselves  are  liable  and  likely  at  any  time  to  be 
overborne  and  trampled  upon  together,  as  exem- 
plified in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew.  If  the 
doctrine  ngainst  which  we  protest  be  admitted, 
the  Episcopal  office  is,  at  best,  but  a  quadrennial 


354  Organization  of  the 

term  of  service,  and  the  undersigned  are  compelled 
to  think  that  the  man  who  would  remain  a  Bishop, 
or  alloAV  himself  to  be  made  one.  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, ''  desires  a  good  work,"  and  is  pre- 
pared for  self-sacrifice,  quite  beyond  the  compre- 
hension of  ordinary  piety. 

As  it  regards  Bishop  Andrew,  if  it  shall  be 
made  to  appear  that  the  action  in  his  case  was  in- 
tended only  to  advise  and  rec/uest  him  to  desist 
from  his  office,  it  does  not  in  any  way  affect  the 
real  or  relative  character  of  the  movement.  When 
a  body,  claiming  the  right  to  compel,  asks  the  res- 
ignation of  an  officer,  the  request  is,  to  all  official 
and  moral  purposes,  compulsory,  as  it  loads  the 
officer  wdth  disability,  and  gives  notice  of  assumed 
unworthiness,  if  not  criminalit}^  The  request  has 
all  the  force  of  a  mandate,  inasmuch  as  the  officer 
is,  by  such  request,  compelled  either  to  resign  or 
remain  in  office  contrary  to  the  known  will  of  the 
majority.  A  simple  request,  therefore,  under  the 
circumstances  supposed,  carries  with  it  all  the  force 
of  a  decree,  and  is  so  understood,  it  is  believed, 
by  all  the  world. 

To  request  Bishop  Andrew  to  resign,  therefore, 
in  view  of  all  the  facts  and  relations  of  the  case, 
was,  in  the  judgment  of  the  minority,  to  punish 
and  degrade  him ;  and  they  maintain  that  the 
whole  movement  was  without  authority  of  law,  is 
hence  of  necessity  null  and  void,  and,  therefore, 


3L  E.   Church,  South.  355 

not  binding  upon  Bishop  Andrew,  or  the  minority 
protesting  against  it. 

6th.  We  protest  against  the  act  of  the  majority, 
instructing  Bishop  Andrew  to  desist  from  the  ex- 
ercise of  his  oflice,  not  merely  on  account  of  the 
injustice  and  evil  connecting  with  the  act  itself, 
but  because  the  act  must  be  understood  as  the  ex- 
ponent of  principles  and  purposes,  as  it  regards 
the  union  of  the  North  and  South  in  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  well-nigh  destroying  all  hope 
of  its  perpetuity.  The  true  position  of  the  par- 
ties in  rehition  to  a  long-existing  com^entional  ar- 
rangement, on  the  subject  of  slaA^ery  and  abolition, 
has  been  fully  under  notice ;  and  Avhen  men  of 
years  and  wisdom,  experience  and  learning — men 
of  no  common  weight  of  character,  and  with  a 
w-ell-earned  aristocracy  of  Church  influence  throw^n 
about  them — assume  and  declare,  in  action  as  well 
as  debate,  that  what  a  plain  law  of  the  Church — 
the  only  law  applicable  in  the  case — sustained  and 
enforced,  too,  by  an  explanatory  decree  of  this 
body,  at  a  previous  session — decides  shall  not  be  a 
disqualification  for  office  of  any  grade  in  the  min- 
istry— when  such  men,  the  law  and  decision  of 
the  General  Conference  notwithstanding,  are  heard 
declaring  that  what  law  provides  for  and  protects 
nevertheless  alivays  has  been,  and  always  shall  he, 
a  disqualification,  what  farther  evidence  is  want- 
ing to  show  that  the  compromise  basis  of  iinoin. 


356  Organization  of  the 

from  which  the  South  has  never  swerved,  has  been 
abandoned  both  by  the  Northern  and  Middle  Con- 
ferences, with  a  few  exceptions  in  the  latter,  and 
that  principles  and  purposes  are  entertained  by 
the  majority,  driving  the  South  to  extreme  action, 
in  defense  both  of  their  rights  and  reputation? 
And  how  far  the  long  train  of  eventful  sequences, 
attendant  upon  the  threatened  result  of  division, 
may  be  traceable  to  the  Northern  and  Middle 
Conferences,  by  the  issue  thus  provoked,  is  a  ques- 
tion to  be  settled  not  by  us,  but  by  our  contempo- 
raries and  posterity. 

It  is  matter  of  history,  with  regard  to  the  past, 
and  will  not  be  questioned,  that  now,  as  formerly, 
the  South  is  upon  the  basis  of  the  Discipline,  on 
the  subject  of  slavery.  The  minority  believe  it 
equally  certain  that  this  is  not  true  with  regard 
to  the  North  proper  especially.  In  view,  then, 
of  the  unity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
which  party  has  been,  in  equity,  entitled  to  the 
sympathy  and  protection  of  the  Middle  or  umpire 
Conferences?  those  who,  through  good  and  evil 
report,  have  kept  good  faith  and  adhered  to  law, 
or  those  whose  opinions  and  purposes  have  led 
them  to  seek  a  state  of  things  in  advance  of  law, 
and  thus  dishonor  its  forms  and  sanctions  ? 

7th.  In  proportion  as  the  minority  appreciate 
and  cling  to  the  unity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  they  are  bound  farther  to  except  to  the 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  357 

position  of  the  majority  in  this  controversy.  Al- 
low that  Bishop  Andrew,  without,  however,  any 
infrino'ement  of  law,  is,  on  account  of  his  connec- 

~  7  7 

tion  with  slavery,  unacceptable  in  the  Northern 
Conferences.  It  is  equally  known  to  the  mnjority 
that  any  Bishop  of  the  Church,  either  violating, 
or  submitting  to  a  violation,  of  the  compromise- 
charter  of  union  between  the  North  and  the  South, 
without  proper  and  public  remonstrance,  cannot 
be  acceptable  at  the  South,  and  need  not  appear 
there.  By  pressing  the  issue  in  question,  there- 
fore, the  majority  virtually  dissolve  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  because 
in  every  constitutional  aspect  it  is  sundered  by  so 
crippling  a  coordinate  branch  of  it  as  to  destroy 
the  itinerant  general  superintendency  altogether. 
Whenever  it  is  clearly  ascertained  that  the  com- 
promise-law of  the  Church,  regulating  slavery  and 
abolition,  is  abandoned,  every  Bishop,  each  of  the 
venerable  and  excellent  men  who  now  adorn  the 
Church  and  its  councils,  ceases  to  be  a  general  su- 
perintendent. The  law  of  union,  the  principle  of 
gravitation,  binding  us  together,  is  dissolved,  and 
the  general  superintendency  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  is  no  more ! 

8th.  The  South  have  not  been  led  thus  to  pro- 
test merely  because  of  the  treatment  received  by 
Bishop  Andrew,  or  the  kindred  action  of  this  body 
in  other  matters.     The  abandonment  of  the  com- 


358  Organization  of  ilie 

promise — the  official  refusal  by  the  majority,  as 
we  have  understood  them,  to  abide  the  arbitrament 
of  law,  is  their  principal  ground  of  complaint  and 
remonstrance.  If  the  minority  have  not  entirely 
misunderstood  the  majority,  the  abolition  and  anti- 
slavery  principles  of  the  North  will  no  longer  al- 
low them  to  submit  to  the  law  of  the  Discipline 
on  the  general  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition ; 
and  if  this  be  so,  if  the  compromise-law  be  either 
repealed  or  allowed  to  remain  a  dead  letter,  the 
South  cannot  submit,  and  the  ahsolitte  necesslti/  of 
division  is  ah^eady  dated.  And  should  the  exigent 
circumstances  in  which  the  minority  find  them- 
selves placed,  by  the  fjxcts  and  developments  al- 
luded to  in  this  remonstrance,  render  it  finally  nec- 
essary that  the  Southern  Conferences  should  have 
a  separate,  independent  existence,  it  is  hoped  that 
the  character  and  services  of  the  minority,  to- 
gether with  the  numbers  and  claims  of  the  minis- 
try and  membership  of  the  portion  of  the  Church 
represented  by  them,  not  less  than  similar  reasons 
and  considerations  on  the  part  of  the  Northern  and 
Middle  Conferences,  will  suggest  the  high  moral 
fitness  of  meeting  this  great  emergency  with  strong 
and  steady  purpose  to  do  justice  to  all  concerned. 
And  it  is  believed  that,  approaching  the  subject 
in  this  way,  it  will  be  found  practicable  to  devise 
and  adopt  such  measures  and  arrangements,  pres- 
ent and  prospective,  as  will  secure  an  amicable 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  359 

division  of  the  Church  upon  the  broad  principles 
of  right  and  equity,  and  destined  to  result  in  the 
common  good  of  the  great  body  of  ministers  and 
members  found  on  either  side  the  line  of  seimrution. 

Signed  by  the  following  delegates,  viz. : 

Kentucliij  Conference. — H.  B.  Bascom,  William 
Gunn,  H.  H.  Kavanaugh,  Edward  Stevenson,  B. 
T.  Crouch,  G.  W.  Brush. 

Missouri. — W.  W.  Redman,  William  Patton,  J. 
C.  Berryman,  J.  M.  Jameson. 

Holston. — E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  Thomas 
Stringfield. 

Tennessee. — Robert  Paine,  John  B.  McFerrin, 
A.  L.  P.  Green,  T.  Maddin. 

North  Carolina. — B.  T.  Blake,  James  Jameson, 
Peter  Doub. 

Ohio.—F^.  W.  Sehon. 

3Iemphis.—(}.  W.  D.  Harris,  S.  S.  Moody,  W. 
McMahon,  Thomas  Joyner. 

ArJcansas. — John  C.  Parker,  William  P.  Rat- 
cliffe,  Andrew  Hunter. 

Virginia.  —  John  Early,  T.  Crowd  er,  W,  A. 
Smith,  Leroy  M.  Lee. 

Mississippi. — William  Winans,  B.  M.  Drake, 
John  Lane,  G.  M.  Rogers. 

Philadelphia. — I.  T.  Cooper,  W.  Cooper,  T.  L 
Thompson,  Henry  White. 

Texas. — Littleton  Fowler. 


360  Organization  of  the 

Illinois. — N.  G.  Benyman,  J.  Stamper. 

Alabama. — Jesse  Boring,  Jefferson  Hamilton, 
W.  Murrah,  G.  Garrett. 

Georgia. — G.  F.  Pierce,  William  J.  Parks,  L. 
Pierce,  J.  W.  Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans,  A.  B.  Longstreet. 

South  Carolina. — W.  Capers,  William  M.  Wight- 
man,  Charles  Betts,  S.  Dunwocly,  H.  A.  C.  Walker. 

New  Jersey. — T.  Sovereign,  T.  Neal. 

New  York,  June  6,  1844. 

Mr.  Simpson  offered  a  resolution  to  the  follow- 
ing effect :  That  while  they  could  not  admit  the 
statements  put  forth  in  the  Protest,  yet,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  courtesy,  they  would  allow  it  to  be  placed 
on  the  journal ;  and  that  a  committee,  consisting 
of  Messrs.  Durbin,  Olin,  and  Hamline,  be  ap- 
pointed to  make  a  true  statement  of  the  case,  to 
be  entered  on  the  journal. 

Dr.  Winans  objected  to  the  word  "  courtesy." 
The  minority  asked  no  courtesy  at  the  hands  of 
the  majority.  They  demanded  it  as  a  right.  The 
chair  decided  that  the  first  part  of  the  resolution 
was  not  in  order,  as  a  minority  had  a  right  to  have 
their  Protest  entered  on  the  journal.  In  this  de- 
cision two  of  his  colleagues  concurred,  and  one 
dissented. 

Several  members  here  rose  to  points  of  order. 

Mr.  Simpson  withdrew  the  first  part  of  his  res- 
olution, and  the  remainder  was  then  adopted. 


M,  E,  Church,  South,  361 

On  motion,  the  special  committee  of  nine  were 
allowed  to  retire. 

The  Committee  appointed  by  the  General  Con- 
ference to  reply  to  the  Protest  of  the  Minority, 
performed  their  work  and  presented  their  report 
on  the  10th  of  June. 

At  the  close  of  the  General  Conference,  before 
leaving  New  York,  Dr.  Bascom,  by  whom  the 
Protest  was  written,  gave  notice,  through  the 
papers  of  the  Church,  of  his  intention  to  review 
at  his  convenience  the  Reply  of  Drs.  Durbin, 
Peck,  and  Elliott,  to  the  Protest  of  the  Minority 
of  the  General  Conference.  This  review,  under 
the  title  of  "Methodism  and  Slavery,"  made  its' 
appearance  just  previous  to  the  Louisville  Conven- 
tion, and  met  with  a  wide  circulation.  An  edition 
of  six  thousand  copies  was  sold  in  a  few  days. 
"  This  powerful  production  made  a  strong  impres- 
sion favorable  to  the  cause  of  the  Church,  South, 
which  was  strongly  seconded  by  the  clear  and  able 
Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Louisville  Con- 
vention on  a  Southern  Organization,  drawn  up  by 
the  same  hand. 

"Dr.  Bascom's  Review  was  replied  to  by  Dr. 
Peck,  one  of  the  Committee  who  replied  to  the 
Protest,  and  Editor  of  the  Methodist  Quarterly 
Review.  This  attempt  to  answer  the  clear  rea- 
soning of  Dr.  Bascom's  work,  was  a  remarkable 
failure.  The  work  of  Dr.  Peck  abounds  in  special 
16 


362  Organisation  of  the 

pleading — imputes  to  the  South  doctrines  never 
entertained  by  it  or  Dr.  Bascom,  and  advocates  at 
length  opinions  never  broached  until  the  General 
Conference  of  1844,  as  the  orthodox  doctrines  of 
Methodism." 

"The  action  of  the  Conference  had  involved 
the  Bishops  in  a  perplexing  difficulty.  The 
Conference  had  declared  it  the  sense  of  the 
body  that  Bishop  Andrew  should  cease  to  exer- 
cise the  functions  of  his  office;  but  the  resolution 
was  so  conveniently  ambiguous,  that  while  on  the 
one  hand  Mr.  Hamline  had  pronounced  it  ^a 
mandamus  measure,  whose  passage  would  abso- 
lutely suspend  the  exe7'cise  of  the  superintendent s 
functions,  until  he  complied  with  the  prescribed  con- 
dition— the  power  to  do  which  was  the  same  with 
that  required  to  suspend  or  depose  a  Bishop' — on 
the  other  hand.  Dr.  Durbin  said  that  the  resolu- 
tion ^only  proposed  to  express  the  sense  of  this 
Conference  in  regard  to  the  matter  which  it  cannot, 
in  duty  and  conscience,  pass  by  without  a  suitable 
expression;  and  having  made  the  solemn  expres- 
sion, it  leaves  Bishoj)  Andrew  to  act  as  his  sense 
of  duty  shall  dictate.'  He  even  said,  that  if  any 
man  should  charge  him,  in  voting  for  the  resolu- 
tion, (the  mandamus  measure  of  absolute  suspen- 
sion of  Mr.  Hamline,)  with  voting  to  depose  Bishop 
Andrew,  he  would  consider  it  a  personal  insult. 
Now,  it  became  the  duty  of  the  Bishops  to  make 


3L  E.  Church,  South,  363 

out  and  publish  their  plan  of  Episcopal  visitation 
for  the  succeeding  four  years,  at  the  close  of  the 
General  Conference;  and  if  the  construction  of 
the  Hamline  section  was  correct,  Bishop  Andrew 
was  ^absolutely  suspended,'  and  of  course  could 
not  be  taken  into  the  plan  of  Episcopal  labor;  but 
if  the  Durbin  section  of  the  party  was  right,  then 
the  General  Conference  having  expressed  its  sense 
of  the  matter,  left  Bishop  Andrew  perfectly  free 
to  be  governed  by  his  sense  of  duty,  and  of  course 
there  was  nothing  to  prevent  his  being  rendered 
available  in  the  Episcopacy.  In  this  state  of  con- 
flicting opinions  among  the  Northern  leaders,  the 
Bishops  found  it  necessary  to  apply  again  to  the 
oracle  for  a  less  equivocal  response;  for  act  as 
they  might,  they  must  come  into  conflict  with  one 
or  other  division  of  the  majority.  They  therefore 
addressed  to  the  General  Conference  the  follow- 
ing inquiries : 

"'To  the  General  Conference: 

"'Reverend  and  Dear  Brethren: — As  the  case 
of  Bishop  Andrew  unavoidably  involves  the  future 
action  of  the  superintendents,  which  in  their  judg- 
ment, in  the  present  position  of  the  Bishop, 
they  have  no  discretion  to  decide  upon,  they 
respectfully  request  of  the  General  Conference 
official  instruction,  in  answer  to  the  following 
questions : 


364  Organization  of  the 

'''First,  Shall  Bishop  Andrew's  name  remain  as 
it  now  stands  in  the  Minutes.  Hymn-book,  and 
Discipline,  or  shall  it  be  struck  off  these  official 
records  ? 

'"'Second.  How  shall  the  Bishop  obtain  his  sup- 
port? as  provided  for  in  the  form  of  Discipline,  or 
in  some  other  wav? 

'"Third.  What  work,  if  an  v.  mav  the  Bishop 
perform?  and  how  shall  he  be  appointed  to  the 
work? 

"^Joshua  Soule, 
^•'Elijah  Heddi^g, 
"^Beverly  Waugh, 
"^'Thos.  a.  Morris/ 

^'To  these  inquiries  the  Conference  returned  the 

following  answer: 

i^  • 

"'Resolved,  1st.  As  the  sense  of  this  Conference, 
That  Bishop  Andrew's  name  stand  in  the  Minutes, 
Hymn-book,  and  Discipline,  as  formerly. 

'"Resolved,  2d.  That  the  rule  in  reference  to 
the  support  of  a  Bishop  and  his  family,  applies  to 
Bishop  Andrew. 

"'Resolved,  3d.  That  whether  in  any,  and  in 
what  work,  Bishop  Andrew  be  employed,  is  to  be 
determined  by  his  own  decision  and  action,  in  re- 
lation to  the  previous  action  of  this  Conference  in 
his  case.' 

"The  first  of  these  resolutions  was  adopted  by 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  365 

a  vote  of  155  to  17,  none  voting  against  it  but 
ultra  northerners  or  abolitionists. 

"The  second  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  vote 
of  152  to  14. 

"  On  the  third,  the  grand  mystifying  resolution, 
which  placed  the  matter  just  where  it  was  before, 
the  vote  stood  as  follows : 

"Yeas. — Xathan  Bangs,  Phineas  Pace,  George 
Peck,  John  B.  Stratten,  Peter  P.  Sandford,  Fitch 
Reed,  Samuel  D.  Ferguson,  Stephen  Martindale, 
Marvin  Richardson,  J.  Lovejoy,  F.  Upham,  S. 
Benton,  Paul  Townsend,  J.  Porter,  D.  S.  King, 
P.  Crandall,  C.  Adams,  G.  Pickering,  M.  Hill,  E. 
Robinson,  D.  B.  Randall,  C.  W.  Morse,  J.  Hobart, 
Heman  Nickerson,  G.  Webber,  Elihu  Scott,  S. 
Chamberlain,  Samuel  Kelley,  J.  Perkins,  J. 
Spaulding,  CD.  Gaboon,  William  D.  Cass,  Tru- 
man Seymour,  James  Covel,  Tobias  Spicer,  Sey- 
mour Coleman,  James  B.  Hough taling,  Jesse  T. 
Peck,  A.  D.  Peck,  A.  Adams,  G.  Baker,  W.  W. 
Ninde,  J.  M.  Snyder,  S.  Comfort,  N.  Rounds,  D. 
A.  Shepherd,  H.  F.  Row,  E.  Bowen,  D.  Holmes, 
G.  Fillmore,  S.  Luckey,  A.  Steele,  F.  G.  Hibbard, 
A.  Abell,  W.  Hosmer,  J.  B.  Alverson,  J.  S.  Stead- 
man,  John  Bain,  G.  W.  Clarke,  J.  Robinson,  T. 
Goodwin,  William  Hunter,  H.  J.  Clark,  J.  Spen- 
cer, S.  Elliott,  S.  Wakefield,  J.  Drummond,  C. 
Elliott,  William  H.  Raper,  J.  M.  Trimble,  J.  B. 
Finley,  L.  L.  Hamline,  Z.  Connell,  J.  H.  Power, 


366  Organization  of  the 

A.  Poe,  E.  Yocum,  W.  Runnells,  E.  Crane,  A. 
Billings,  J.  A.  Baughman,  M.  Simpson,  A.  Wiley, 
E.  R.  Ames,  J.  Miller,  C.  W.  Ruter,  A.  Wood,  A. 
Eddy,  J.  Havens,  B.  Weed,  H.  W.  Reed,  J.  T. 
Mitchell,  P.  Akers,  P.  Cartwright,  A.  Griffith,  J. 
Bear,  N.  J.  B.  Morgan,  J.  A.  Collins,  J.  Davis,  J. 
P.  Durbin,  L.  Scott,  I.  Winner,  J.  S.  Porter,  J. 
K.  Shaw— 103. 

"Nays.  —  C.  W.  Carpenter,  John  G.  Dow,  R. 
Boyd,  G.  Smith,  J.  Stamper,  J.  Van  Cleve,  N.  G. 
Berryman,  W.  W.  Redman,  J.  C.  Berryman.  J.  M. 
Jameson,  H.  B.  Bascom,  W.  Gunn,  H.  H.  Kava- 
naugh,  E.  Stevenson,  B.  T.  Crouch,  G.  W.  Brush, 
E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  T.  String-field,  R.  Paine, 
J.  B.  McFerrin,  A.  L.  P.  Green,  T.  Maddin,  G. 
W.  D.  Harris,  S.  S.  Moody,  William  McMahon,  T. 
Joyner,  J.  C.  Parker,  W.  P.  RatclifFe,  A.  Hunter, 
L.  Fowler,  William  Winans,  B.  M.  Drake,  J.  Lane, 
G.  M.  Rogers,  William  Murrah,  J.  Boring,  G. 
Garrett,  J.  Hamilton,  G.  F.  Pierce,  L.  Pierce,  W. 
J.  Parks,  J.  W.  Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans,  A.  B.  Long- 
street,  William  Capers,  W.  M.  Wightman,  C.  Betts, 
S.  Dunwody,  H.  A.  C.  Walker,  Peter  Doub,  B.  T. 
Blake,  J.  Early,  L.  M.  Lee,  W.  A.  Smith,  T. 
Crowder,  H.  Slicer,  C.  B.  Tippett,  T.  B.  Sargent, 
J.  A.  Gere,  G.  Hildt,  T.  J.  Thompson,  H.  White, 
I.  T.  Cooper,  W.  Cooper,  T.  Neal,  T.  Sovereign 
--67. 

"This  resolution  allowed  one  party  at  the  North 


31,  E.  Clmrclu  South.  367 


still  to  regard  the  action  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence as  mandatory^  and  the  other  to  consider  it 
merely  advisory.  And  up  to  the  present  time  not 
the  smallest  advance  has  been  made  toward  any 
settled  or  agreed  understanding  on  the  part  of  the 
majority,  as  to  the  true  nature  and  intention  of 
the  action  against  Bishop  Andrew." 

On  the  7th  of  June,  Dr.  Paine,  chairman  of  the 
select  committee  of  nine,  reported  the  following 
Plan  of  Separation: 

'^The  select  committee  of  nine  to  consider  and 
report  on  the  Declaration  of  the  delegates  from 
the  Conferences  of  the  slaveholding  States,  beg 
leave  to  submit  the  following  report: 

"Whereas,  a  declaration  has  been  presented  to 
this  General  Conference,  with  the  signatures  of 
fifty-one  delegates  of  the  body,  from  thirteen  An- 
nual Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  rep- 
resenting that,  for  various  reasons  enumerated, 
the  objects  and  purposes  of  the  Christian  min- 
istry and  Church  organization  cannot  be  suc- 
cessfully accomplished  by  them  under  the  juris- 
diction of  this  General  Conference  as  now  consti- 
tuted; and 

"Whereas,  in  the  event  of  a  separation,  a  con- 
tingency to  which  the  Declaration  asks  attention 
as  not  improbable,  we  esteem  it  the  duty  of  this 
General  Conference  to  meet  the  emergency  with 


368  Organization  of  the 

Christian  kindness  and  the  strictest  equity;  there- 
fore, 

''Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  An- 
nual Conferences  in  General  Conference  assembled, 

"1st.  That,  should  the  delegates  from  the  Con- 
ferences in  the  slaveholding  States  find  it  neces- 
sary to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  Connec- 
tion, the  following  rule  shall  be  observed  Avith 
regard  to  the  Northern  boundary  of  such  Con- 
nection: All  the  Societies,  Stations,  and  Confer- 
ences adhering  to  the  Church  in  the  South,  by 
a  vote  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  said 
Societies,  Stations,  and  Conferences,  shall  re- 
main under  the  unmolested  pastoral  care  of  the 
Southern  Church;  and  the  ministers  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  shall  in  nowise  at- 
tempt to  organize  Churches  or  Societies  within 
the  limits  of  the  Church,  South,  nor  shall  they 
attempt  to  exercise  any  pastoral  oversight  therein; 
it  being  understood  that  the  ministry  of  the  South 
reciprocally  observe  the  same  rule  in  relation  to 
Stations,  Societies,  and  Conferences  adhering,  by 
vote  of  a  majority,  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church;  provided  also  that  this  rule  shall  apply 
only  to  Societies,  Stations,  and  Conferences  bor- 
dering on  the  line  of  division,  and  not  to  interior 
charges,  which  shall  in  all  cases  be  left  to  the  care 
of  that  Church  within  w^hose  territory  they  are 
situated. 


3L  E.  Church,  South,  369 

'^2d.  That  ministers,  local  and  traveling,  of 
every  grade  and  office  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  may,  as  they  prefer,  remain  in  that  Church, 
or,  without  blame,  attach  themselves  to  the  Church, 
South. 

"  3d.  Resolved,  hy  the  delegates  of  all  the  Annual 
Conferences  in  General  Conference  assembled,  That 
we  recommend  to  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  at 
their  first  approaching  sessions,  to  authorize  a 
change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  so  that  the 
first  clause  shall  read  thus :  '  They  shall  not  ap- 
propriate the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  nor 
of  the  Chartered  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than 
for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  su- 
perannuated, and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives, 
widows  and  children,  and  to  such  other  purposes 
as  may  be  determined  upon  by  the  votes  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference.' 

"4th.  That  whenever  the  Annual  Conferences, 
by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  all  their  members 
voting  on  the  third  resolution,  shall  have  concurred 
in  the  recommendation  to  alter  the  sixth  restric- 
tive article,  the  Agents  at  New  York  and  Cincin- 
nati shall,  and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  deliver  over  to  any  authorized  agent 
or  appointee  of  the  Church,  South,  should  one  be 
authorized,  all  notes  and  book  accounts  against  the 
ministers.  Church-members,  or  citizens  within  its 
boundaries,  with  authority  to  collect  the  same  for 
16* 


370  Organization  of  the 

the  sole  use  of  the  Southern  Church,  and  that  said 
agents  also  convey  to  the  aforesaid  agent  or  ap- 
pointee of  the  South,  all  the  real  estate,  and  as- 
sign to  him  all  the  property,  including  presses, 
stock,  and  all  right  and  interest  connected  with 
the  printing  establishments  at  Charleston,  Rich- 
mond, and  Nashville,  which  now  belona'  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"5th.  That  when  the  Annual  Conferences  shall 
have  approved  the  aforesaid  change  in  the  sixth 
restrictive  article,  there  shall  be  transferred  to  the 
above  agent  of  the  Southern  Church  so  much  of 
the  capital  and  produce  of  the  Methodist  Book 
Concern  as  will,  with  the  notes,  book  accounts, 
presses,  etc.,  mentioned  in  the  last  resolution,  bear 
the  same  proportion  to  the  whole  property  of  said 
Concern  that  the  traveling  preachers  in  the  South- 
ern Church  shall  bear  to  all  the  traveling  minis- 
ters of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  the  di- 
vision to  be  made  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of 
traveling  preachers  in  the  forthcoming  Minutes. 

"6th.  That  the  above  transfer  shall  be  in  the 
form  of  annual  payments  of  §2,500  per  annum, 
and  specifically  in  stock  of  the  Book  Concern,  and 
in  Southern  notes  and  accounts  due  the  establish- 
ment, and  accruing  after  the  first  transfer  men- 
tioned above;  and  until  all  the  payments  are  made, 
the  Southern  Church  shall  share  in  all  the  net 
profits  of  the  Book  Concern,  in  the  proportion 


31.  E.  Church,  &outh.  371 

that  the  amount  due  them,  or  in  arrears,  bears  to 
all  the  property  of  the  Concern. 

'^  7th.  That  be  and  they  are  hereby  ap- 
pointed commissioners  to  act  in  concert  with  the 
same  number  of  commissioners  appointed  by  the 
Southern  Organization,  (should  one  be  formed.)  to 
estimate  the  amount  which  will  flill  due  to  the 
South  by  the  preceding  rule,  and  to  have  full 
powers  to  carry  into  effect  the  whole  arrangements 
proposed  with  regard  to  the  division  of  property, 
should  the  separation  take  place.  And  if  by  any 
means  a  vacancy  occurs  in  this  Board  of  Commis- 
sioners, the  Book  Committee  at  Xew  York  shall 
fill  said  vacancy. 

^^8th.  That  whenever  any  agents  of  the  South- 
ern Church  are  clothed  with  legal  authority  or 
corporate  power  to  act  in  the  premises,  the  agents 
at  New  York  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed 
to  act  in  concert  with  said  Southern  agents,  so  as 
to  give  the  provisions  of  these  resolutions  a  legally 
binding  force. 

"9th.  That  all  the  property  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  meeting-houses,  parsonages, 
colleges,  schools.  Conference-funds,  cemeteries,  and 
of  every  kind  within  the  limits  of  the  Southern 
Organization,  shall  be  forever  free  from  any  claim 
set  up  on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  so  far  as  this  resolution  can  be  of  force 
in  the  premises. 


372  Organization  of  the 

*^10th.  That  the  Church  so  formed  in  the  South 
shall  have  a  common  property  in  all  the  copy- 
rights in  possession  of  the  Book  Concern  at  New 
York  and  Cincinnati,  at  the  time  of  the  settlement 
by  the  commissioners. 

^'Resolvedy  That  the  Bishops  be  respectfully  re- 
quested to  lay  that  part  of  this  report  requiring 
the  action  of  the  Annual  Conferences  before  them 
as  soon  as  possible,  beginning  with  the  New  York 
Conference.  Robert  Paine,  Chairman, 

"New  York,  June  7,  1844." 

Dr.  Elliott  moved  the  adoption  of  the  report. 
He  said:  He  had  had  the  opportunity  of  exam- 
ining it,  and  had  done  so  narrowly.  He  believed 
it  w^ould  insure  the  purposes  designed,  and  would 
be  for  the  best  interests  of  the  Church.  It  w^as 
his  firm  opinion  that  this  w^as  a  proper  course  for 
them  to  pursue,  in  conformity  with  the  Scriptures, 
and  the  best  analogies  they  could  collect  from  the 
ancient  Churches,  as  w^ell  as  from  the  best-organ- 
ized modern  Churches.  All  history  did  not  fur- 
nish an  example  of  so  large  a  body  of  Christians 
remaining  in  such  close  and  unbroken  connection 
as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  was  now 
found  necessary  to  separate  this  large  body,  for  it 
was  becoming  unwieldy.  He  referred  to  the 
Churches  at  Antioch,  at  Alexandria,  at  Jerusalem, 
which,  though  they  continued  as   one,  were   at 


31.  K  Church,  South.  373 

least  as  distinct  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
would  be  if  the  suggested  separation  took  place. 
The  Church  of  England  was  one  under  the  Bishops 
of  Canterbury  and  York,  connected  and  yet  dis- 
tinct. In  his  own  mind  it  had  been  for  years  per- 
fectly clear  that  to  this  conclusion  they  must 
eventually  come.  Were  the  question  that  now 
unhappily  agitated  the  body  dead  and  buried, 
there  would  be  good  reason  for  passing  the  resolu- 
tions contained  in  that  report.  As  to  their  repre- 
sentation in  that  General  Conference,  one  out  of 
twenty  was  but  a  meager  representation,  and  to 
go  on  as  they  had  done,  it  would  soon  be  one  out 
of  thirty.  And  the  body  was  now  too  large  to  do 
business  advantageously.  The  measure  contem- 
plated was  not  schism,  but  separation  for  their  mu- 
tual convenience  and  prosperity. 

Dr.  Paine  said  the  committee  wished  a  verbal 
alteration  made.  In  the  fifth  resolution  "preach- 
ers" were  spoken  of  in  the  Southern  Church,  and 
"ministers"  in  the  Northern.  Nothing  was  said 
there  of  the  Chartered  Fund — the  committee  had 
prepared  the  following  additional  resolution  to 
meet  the  omission : 

"12.  Resolved,  That  the  Book  Agents  at  New 
York  be  directed  to  make  such  compensation  to 
the  Conferences  South  for  their  dividend  from  the 
Chartered  Fund  as  the  commissioners  to  be  pro- 
vided for  shall  agree  upon." 


374  Organization  of  the 

Speeches  were  made  in  opposition  to  the  report 
by  Messrs.  Griffith,  Cartwright,  and  Sandford, 
and  in  its  favor  by  Drs.  Bangs,  Paine,  and  Luckey, 
and  Messrs.  FiUmore,  Finley,  Hamline,  Collins, 
and  Porter. 

During  the  pending  of  the  discussion,  Dr.  Paine 
moved  to  insert  the  word  ^'Conferences,"  instead 
of  "delegates,"  in  the  first  resolution,  which  was 
agreed  to.  In  the  afternoon  session  of  the  same 
day,  the  report  was  taken  up  and  each  resolution 
voted  on  separately.  The  first  resolution  was 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  142  to  22;  and  after  the 
change  suggested  by  Dr.  Paine,  inserting  Con- 
ferences instead  of  delegates  to  decide  on  the 
necessity  of  a  separation,  the  vote  was  again  taken, 
and  stood  ayes  135,  noes  15.  The  second  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  by  135  in  the  affirmative  to  7  in 
the  negative;  the  third  resolution  by  147  to  10;  the 
fifth  resolution  by  153  ayes  to  13  noes;  and  the 
remainder  with  the  preamble,  without  a  division. 

Dr.  Bangs  then  moved  that  the  blank  in  the 
seventh  resolution  be  filled,  and  Dr.  Bangs,  Dr. 
Peck,  and  James  B.  Finley  were  appointed  as 
commissioners  on  the  part  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence.   The  report  was  then  adopted  as  a  whole. 

On  the  10th  of  June  the  Conference  adjourned 
sine  die.  It  was  the  last  General  Conference  in 
which  the  Representatives  of  the  two  sections 
ever  met.     The  separation  was  final. 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  375 


CHAPTER    Y. 

The  Meeting  of  the  Southern  Delegates  in  New  York — Plan 
of  action  recommended  to  the  Annual  Conferences — Their 
Address  to  the  members  of  the  Church  in  the  Slavehold- 
ing  States  and  Territories — Excitement  throughout  the 
Church — Resolutions  adopted  in  Virginia,  in  Alabama, 
in  North  Carolina,  in  South  Carolina,  in  Georgia,  in  Lou- 
isiana, in  Tennessee,  in  Kentucky — Dr.  Elliott  advocates 
Division — The  action  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences 
— Bishop  Andrew's  position — Letter  from  Bishop  Soule 
to  Bishop  Andrew — Letter  from  Bishop  Soule  in  reply  to 
Dr.  Bond — Communication  from  the  College  of  Bishops. 

When  the  General  Conference  of  1844  ad- 
journed, there  was  probably  not  a  member  of  the 
body  who  entertained  any  hope  of  the  continued 
unity  of  the  Church,  under  one  jurisdiction.  As 
we  have  already  seen,  impressed  wdth  the  belief, 
that  the  interests  of  Methodism  in  the  South  would 
demand  a  separate  organization,  provision  was 
made  not  only  for  the  formation  of  "a  distinct 
ecclesiastical  Connection"  of  the  Conferences  in 
the  slaveholding  States,  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
a  Southern  General  Conference,  but  also  defining 


376  Organization  of  the 

the  status  of  societies,  stations,  and  Conferences 
on  the  border,  both  North  and  South.  In  order 
to  preserve  the  unity  of  the  Church  on  the  border, 
it  had  been  agreed  that  "  all  the  societies,  stations, 
and  Conferences,  adhering  to  the  Church,  South, 
by  a  majority  of  the  members  of  said  societies, 
stations,  and  Conferences,  shall  remain  under  the 
unmolested  pastoral  care  of  the  Southern  Church ; 
and  the  ministers  of  the  M.  E.  Church  shall,  in 
nowise,  attempt  to  organize  Churches  or  societies 
within  the  limits  of  the  Church,  South."  This 
rule  was  to  be  reciprocal. 

Provision  was  also  made  for  an  equitable  division 
of  the  Book  Concerns  in  New  York  and  Cincinnati, 
and  the  Chartered  Fund,  and  at  the  same  time  se- 
curing to  the  Southern  Church  "all  the  property 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  meeting- 
houses, parsonages,  colleges,  schools.  Conference 
funds,  cemeteries,  and  of  every  kind  within  the 
limits  of  the  Southern  organization,"  making  these 
"  forever  free  from  any  claim  set  up  on  the  part 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  so  far  as  this 
resolution  can  be  of  force  in  the  premises."  We 
cannot  but  admire  the  sense  of  justice,  as  well  as 
the  spirit  which  prompted  it,  by  which  the  ma- 
jority were  influenced  in  the  adoption  of  the  Plan 
of  Separation,  by  which  the  rights  of  the  South 
were  secured.  It  was  worthy  such  a  body  of 
Christian  ministers. 


M,  E,  Church,  South,  377 

It  is  true  that  the  obhgation  to  carry  out  these 
resolutions  depended  upon  the  necessity  of  the 
organization  of  the  Conferences  in  the  shivehold- 
ing  States  into  a  separate  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion. This  necessity,  however,  was  left  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  judgment  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences in  the  Southern  and  South-western  States. 
They  alone  were  to  be  the  umpires  in  deciding 
this  question.  As  the  best  method  of  ascertain- 
ing the  sense  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences, 
before  leaving  New  York,  the  Southern  dele- 
gates held  a  meeting  for  consultation,  at  which 
they  adopted  the  following  plan  of  action,  to  be 
recommended  to  the  Conferences  they  represented : 

"  With  a  view  to  promote  uniformity  of  action 
in  the  premises,  we  beg  leave  to  submit  to  your 
consideration  the  expediency  of  concurring  in  the 
following  plan  of  procuring  the  judgment  of  the 
Church  within  the  slaveholding  States,  as  to  the 
propriety  of  organizing  a  Southern  division  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States, 
and  of  effecting  such  an  organization  should  it  be 
deemed  necessary : 

"  1.  There  shall  be  a  Convention  held  in  Louis- 
ville, Kentucky,  to  commence  the  1st  May,  1845, 
composed  of  delegates  from  the  several  Annual 
Conferences  within  the  slaveholding  States,  ap- 
pointed in  the  ratio  of  ojie  for  every  eleven  mem- 
bers. 


378  Organization  of  the 

"  2.  These  delegates  shall  be  appointed  at  the 
ensuing  session  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences 
enumerated,  each  Conference  providing  for  the 
expenses  of  its  own  delegates. 

These   several   Annual  Conferences   shall 


a  Q 


instruct  their  delegates  to  the  proposed  Conven- 
tion on  the  points  on  which  action  is  contemplated 
— conforming  their  instructions,  as  far  as  possible, 
to  the  opinions  and  wishes  of  the  membership 
within  their  several  Conference  bounds. 

"  W.  WiNANS,  Ch'n. 
*'New  York,  June  11,  1844." 

They  also  sent  abroad  the  following  Address : 

"  To  the  Ministers  and  Members  of  the  Metliodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  Slaveholding  States  and  Territories : 

"  The  undersigned,  delegates  in  the  late  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
from  thirteen  Annual  Conferences  in  slaveholding 
States  and  Territories,  would  most  respectfully 
represent — that  the  various  action  of  the  majoritu 
of  the  General  Conference,  at  its  recent  session, 
on  the  subject  of  dc^very  and  aholition,  has  been 
such  as  to  render  it  necessary,  in  the  judgment  of 
those  addressing  you,  to  call  attention  to  the  ^^rt*- 
scription  and  ddsahility  under  which  the  Southern 
portion  of  the  Church  must  of  necessity  labor  in 
view  of  the  action  alluded  to,  unless  some  meas- 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  379 

ures  are  adopted  to  free  the  minority  of  the  South 
from  the  oppressive  jurisdiction  of  the  majority  in 
the  North,  in  this  respect. 

"  The  proceedings  of  the  majority,  in  several 
cases,  irfvolving  the  question  of  slavery,  have  been 
such  as  indicate  most  conclusively  that  the  legis- 
lative, judicial,  and  administrative  action  of  the 
General  Conference,  as  now  organized,  will  always 
be  extremely  hurtful,  if  not  finally  ruinous,  to  the 
interests  of  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Church; 
and  must  necessarily  produce  a  state  of  conviction 
and  feeling  in  the  slaveholding  States,  entirely  in- 
consistent with  either  the  peace  or  prosperity  of 
the  Church. 

"  The  opinions  and  purposes  of  the  Church  in 
the  North  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  are  in  direct 
conflict  with  those  of  the  South;  and  unless  the 
South  will  submit  to  the  dictation  and  interference 
of  the  North,  greatly  beyond  what  the  existing 
law  of  the  Church  on  slavery  and  abolition  au- 
thorizes, there  is  no  hope  of  any  thing  like  union 
or  harmony.  The  debate  and  action  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hard- 
ing, of  the  Baltimore  Conference ;  the  debate  and 
action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew;  and  the 
opinions  and  purposes  avowed  and  indicated  in  a 
manifesto  of  the  majority,  in  reply  to  a  protest 
from  the  minority  against  the  proceedings  com- 
plained of,  together  with  hundreds  of  petitions 


380  Organization  of  the 

from  the  East,  North,  and  West,  demanding  that 
slavery,  in  all  its  possible  forms,  be  separated  from 
the  Church;  these,  and  similar  demonstrations, 
have  convinced  the  undersigned  that  they  cannot 
remain  silent  or  inactive  without  hazard*and  in- 
justice to  the  different  portions  of  the  Church 
they  represent. 

"  They  have,  therefore,  thought  proper  to  in- 
voke the  attention  of  the  Church  in  the  South  to 
a  state  of  things  they  are  compelled  to  regard  as 
worthy  the  immediate  notice  and  action  of  the 
Church  throughout  all  the  slaveholding  States  and 
Territories.  The  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition, 
notwithstanding  the  plain  law  of  the  Discipline 
on  the  subject,  was  agitated  and  debated  in  the 
late  General  Conference  for  five  successive  weeks ; 
and  even  at  the  very  close  of  the  session,  the  as- 
pect of  things  was  less  satisfactory  and  more 
threatening  to  the  South  than  at  any  former  pe- 
riod ;  and  under  such  circumstances  of  mutual  dis- 
trust and  disagreement,  the  General  Conference 
adjourned. 

"  Some  time  before  the  adjournment,  however, 
upon  a  declaration  made  by  the  Southern  delega- 
tions, setting  forth  the  impossibility  of  enduring 
such  a  state  of  things  much  longer,  the  General 
Conference,  by  a  very  large  and  decided  majority, 
agreed  to  a  plan  of  formal  and  pacific  separation^ 
by  which  the  Southern  Conferences  are  to  have  a 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  381 

distinct  and  independent  organization  of  their  own, 
in  no  way  subject  to  Northern  jurisdiction.  It 
affords  us  pleasure  to  state  that  there  were  those 
found  among  the  majority  who  met  this  proposi- 
tion with  every  manifestation  of  justice  and  liber- 
ality. And  should  a  similar  spirit  be  exhibited 
by  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  North,  when 
submitted  to  them,  as  provided  for  in  the  plan 
itself,  there  w^ill  remain  no  legal  impediment  to  its 
peaceful  consummation. 

"  This  plan  is  approved  by  the  undersigned  as 
the  best,  and,  indeed,  all  that  can  be  done  at  pres- 
ent, in  remedy  of  the  great  evil  under  wdiich  we 
labor.  Provision  is  made  for  a  peaceable  and  con- 
stitutional division  of  Church-property  of  every 
kind.  The  plan  does  not  decide  that  division 
shall  take  place ;  but  simply,  and  it  is  thought  se- 
curely, provides  that  it  may,  if  it  be  found  neces- 
sary. Of  this  necessity  you  are  to  be  the  judges, 
after  a  careful  survey  and  comparison  of  all  the 
reasons  for  and  against  it. 

"As  the  undersigned  have  had  opportunity  and 
advantages  which  those  at  a  distance  could  not 
possess,  to  form  a  correct  judgment  in  the  prem- 
ises, and  it  may  be  expected  of  them  that  they 
express  their  views  fully  on  the  subject,  they  do 
not  hesitate  to  say  that  they  regard  a  separation 
at  no  distant  day  as  inevitable ;  and  farther,  that 
the  plan  of  separation  agreed  upon  is  as  eligible 


382  Organization  of  the 

as  the  Southern  Conferences  have  any  right  to  ex- 
pect at  any  time.  We  most  respectfully,  there- 
fore, and  with  no  common  solicitude,  beseech  our 
brethren  of  the  ministry  and  membership  in  the 
slaveholding  States,  to  examine  this  matter  care- 
fully, and  weighing  it  well  in  all  its  bearings,  try 
to  reach  the  conclusion  most  proper  under  the  cir- 
cumstances. Shall  that  which,  in  all  moral  likeli- 
hood, must  take  place  soon,  be  attempted  now,  or 
are  there  reasons  why  it  should  be  postponed  ? 

"  We  deprecate  all  excitement ;  w^e  ask  you  to 
be  calm  and  collected,  and  to  approach  and  dispose 
of  the  subject  with  all  the  candor  and  forbearance 
the  occasion  demands.  The  separation  proposed 
is  not  schism,  it  is  not  secession.  It  is  a  State  or 
family,  separating  into  two  different  States  or 
families,  by  mutual  consent.  As  the  '  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church'  w^ill  be  found  North  of  the  di- 
viding line,  so  the  '  Methodist  Episcopal  Church' 
will  be  found  South  of  the  same  line. 

"  The  undersigned  have  clung  to  the  cherished 
unity  of  the  Church  wdth  a  firmness  of  purpose 
and  force  of  feeling  which  nothing  but  invincible 
necessity  could  subdue.  If,  however,  nominal 
unity  must  coexist  wdth  unceasing  strife  and  alien- 
ated feeling,  what  is  likely  to  be  gained  by  its  per- 
petuation? Every  minister  and  member  of  the 
Church  in  slaveholding  States  must  perceive  at 
once  that  the  conntant,  not  to  say  interminable, 


M.  E.  Church,  Soidh.  383 

agitation  of  the  slaveiy  and  abolition  question  in 
the  councils  of  the  Church,  and  elsewhere,  must 
terminate  in  incalculable  injury  to  all  the  South- 
ern Conferences.  Our  access  to  slave  and  master 
is,  to  a  great  extent,  cut  off.  The  legislation  of 
the  Church  in  conflict  with  that  of  the  State — 
Church-policy  attempting  to  control  public  opinion 
and  social  order — must  generate  an  amount  of  hos- 
tility to  the  Church,  impossible  to  be  overcome, 
and  slowly  but  certainly  to  diminish  both  the 
means  and  the  hope  of  usefulness  and  extension 
on  the  part  of  the  Church. 

''  Disposed,  however,  to  defer  to  the  judgment 
of  the  Church,  w^e  leave  this  subject  Avith  you. 
Our  first  and  most  direct  object  has  been  to  bring 
it  fully  before  you,  and,  giving  you  an  opportunity 
to  judge  and  determine  for  yourselves,  aw^ait  your 
decision.  The  minority  from  the  South,  in  the 
late  General  Conference,  ^vere  most  anxious  to 
adjourn  the  decision  in  the  case  of  Bishop  An- 
drew, with  all  its  attendant  results,  to  the  Annual 
Conferences  and  to  the  Church  at  large,  to  con- 
sider and  decide  upon  during  the  next  four  years 
— as  no  charge  was  presented  against  the  Bishop, 
and  especially  as  this  measure  was  urgently  rec- 
ommended by  the  w^hole  bench  of  Bishops,  although 
Bishop  Hedding  subsequently  withdrew  his  name. 
The  proposition,  however,  to  refer  the  whole  sub- 
ject to  the  Church,  was  promptly  rejected  by  the 


384  Organization  of  the 

majority,  and  immediate  action  demanded  and  had. 
But  as  all  the  facts  connected  with  the  equivocal 
suspension  of  Bishop  Andrew  wall  come  before 
you  in  other  forms,  it  is  unnecessary  to  detail 
them  in  this  brief  address,  the  main  object  of 
which  is  to  place  before  you,  in  a  summary  w^ay, 
the  principal  facts  and  reasons  connected  with  the 
proposed  separation  of  the  Southern  Conferences 
into  a  distinct  organization. 

"Adopted  at  a  meeting  of  the  Southern  dele- 
gations, held  in  New  York,  at  the  close  of  the 
General  Conference,  June  11th,  1844,  and  ordered 
to  be  published. 

"  Signed  on  behalf  of  the  Kentucky,  Missouri, 
Holston,  Tennessee,  North  Carolina,  Memphis, 
Arkansas,  Virginia,  Mississippi,  Texas,  Alabama, 
Georgia,  and  South  Carolina  Annual  Confer- 
ences. 

^  ''Keniuchj  Conference. — H.  B.  Bascom,  William 
Gunn,  H.  H.  Kavanaugh,  Edward  Stevenson,  B. 
T.  Crouch,  G.  W.  Brush. 

^'Missouri, — W.  W.  Redman,  William  Patton,  J. 
C.  Berry  man,  J.  M.  Jameson. 

"Holston.— E^.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  Thomas 
Stringfield. 

"Tennessee. — Robert  Paine,  John  B.  McFerrin, 
A.  L.  P.  Green,  T.  Maddin. 

"North  Carolina. — B.  T.  Blake,  James  Jameson, 
Peter  Doub. 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  385 

"3fem2Jhis.—(^.  W.  D.  Harris,  S.  S.  Moody,  W. 
McMahon,  Thomas  Joyner. 

"Arkmisas. — John  C.  Parker,  William  P.  Rat- 
clifFe,  Andrew  Hunter. 

"Virginia. — John  Early,  T.  Crowder,  W.  A. 
Smith,  Leroy  M.  Lee. 

'^Mississippi. — William  Winans,  B.  M.  Drake, 
John  Lane,  G.  M.  Rogers. 

''Texas. — Littleton  Fowler. 

"Alabama. — Jesse  Boring,  Jefferson  Hamilton,. 
W.  Murrah,  G.  Garrett. 

"Georgia. — G.  F.  Pierce,  William  J.  Parks,  L. 
Pierce,  J.  W.  Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans,  A.  B.  Long- 
street. 

"South  Carolina. — W.  Capers,  William  M.  Wight- 
man,  Charles  Betts,  S.  Dunwody,  H.  A.  C. 
Walker." 

It  must  not  be  understood  that  during  the  pend- 
ing of  the  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew, 
the  Church  in  the  South  was  indifferent.  The 
assertion  so  frequently  made,  that  the  popular 
mind  of  the  South  was  inflamed  by  the  delegates 
on  their  return  from  the  General  Conference,  and 
that  but  for  their  appeals  to  passions  easily  aroused, 
there  would  have  been  no  dissatisfaction  among 
the  people,  is  not  sustained  by  the  facts  in  the 
case. 

Previous  to  the  adjournment  of  the  General 
17 


386  Organization  of  the 

Conference,  and  before  the  action  in  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew  was  known,  primary  meetings  were 
held  in  different  portions  of  the  South,  expressing 
the  greatest  dissatisfaction  at  the  arrest  of  his  offi- 
cial character. 

On  the  Chesterfield  Circuit,  in.  the  Virginia  Con- 
ference, a  meeting  was  held  at  Damascus  Church, 
on  the  8th  of  June,  where  several  resolutions 
were  adopted  condemnatory  of  the  course  of  the 
General  Conference  3  among  them  the  follow- 
ing:— 

''Resolved^  That  while  we  deeply  and  sincerely 
sympathize  in  the  wounded  feelings  of  our  much- 
loved  Bishop  Andrew,  we  solemnly  contemn  the 
principles,  and  hold  in  sovereign  contempt  the  men 
who  can,  recMess  of  consequences,  urge  such  princi- 
ples against  the  spirit  and  letter  of  our  excellent 
Book  of  Discipline,  in  the  attempt  to  degrade  from 
his  office  the  man  who,  in  spite  of  men  and  devils, 
has  filled  to  the  full  the  high  prerogatives  of  the 
Episcopal  chair,  and  whom  every  Southern  Meth- 
odist delights  to  respect,  honor,  and  obey." 

In  Russell  county,  Alabama,  on  the  same  day, 
the  following  resolutions  were  adopted  at  a  meet- 
ing not  assembled  for  religious  purposes  : 

''Resolved,  That  this  meeting  has  witnessed,  with 
intense  interest  and  painful  anxiety,  the  agitation 
of  the  slave  question  in  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  now  convened  in 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  387 

the  city  of  New  York.  They  have  seen  that  a 
topic,  which  hitherto  has  excited  the  bad  passions 
of  man  only  in  the  orgies  of  fanaticism,  or  in  the 
strife  of  factions  in  their  unprincipled  struggle  for 
political  power,  has  been  transferred  to  the  foot  of 
that  throne  which  ought  to  be  sacred  to  charity, 
peace,  and  good-will  among  brethren  of  the  same 
faith.  They  have  beheld,  with  unutterable  indig- 
nation, the  humiliating  fact  of  a  Bishop  of  the 
State  of  Georgia,  eminent  for  his  piety,  learning, 
ability,  and  Christian  virtues,  put,  in  effect,  upon 
his  trial  as  a  culprit,  for  the  alleged  sin  of  marry- 
ing a  lady  possessed  of  slaves,  by  which  it  is  in- 
sultingly affirmed,  that  a  slaveholder  is  an  unfit 
teacher  of  the  word  of  God,  and  must  submit,  if 
tolerated  as  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  to 
a  subordinate  station  in  the  ministry — a  discrimi- 
nation which  finds  no  warrant  in  the  sacred  ora- 
cles of  God,  and  which  involves  both  insult  and 
outrage  to  the  people  of  an  entire  section  of  this 
Union. 

"Be  it  farther  resolved,  That  if  Bishop  Andrew 
should  be  deposed  from  his  Ej)iscopal  functions, 
we  earnestly  invoke  the  clergy  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  at  the  South,  to  take  immediate 
measures  for  their  secession  from  a  Conference 
which  has  placed  so  gross  a  stigma  not  only  on 
themselves,  but  on  their  respective  flocks — an  in- 
sult which  can  admit  of  but  one  remedy,  in  the 


388  Organization  of  the 

application  of  which  they  may  be  assured  of  the 
warm  sympathy  and  unalterable  support  of  the 
religious  congregations  of  the  whole  Southern 
States  of  every  sect  and  denomination."* 

As  the  intelligence  of  the  degradation  of  Bishop 
Andrew  flashed  over  the  country,  the  Church  and 
people  everywhere  throughout  the  South  were 
aroused.  At  Wilmington,  North  Carolina,  on  the 
10th  of  June,  the  following  resolutions  were 
adopted : 

"  Whereas,  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  now  in  session,  has  taken 
action  in  sundry  matters  deeply  interesting  and 
vitally  important  to  the  Southern  portion  of  the 
Church ;  first,  in  the  affirmation  of  the  decision  of 
the  Baltimore  Conference  in  the  case  of  the  Rev. 
Francis  A.  Harding ;  secondly,  in  requesting  that 
Bishop  Andrew  desist  from  the  exercise  of  his 
office  because  of  his  connection  with  slavery, 
w^hich  request  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  virtual 
deposition  from  office ;  and,  thirdly,  in  the  rescis- 
sion of  the  resolution  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1840  respecting  the  testimony  of  colored  per- 
sons in  Church-trials ;  and,  whereas,  these  various 
steps  have  been  taken  against  the  remonstrances, 
protests,  and  declarations  of  the  Southern  delega- 
tions, and  with  full  assurances  of  the  ruinous  ef- 

*  Western  Christian  Advocate,  August  9,  1844. 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  389 

fects  which  such  proceedings  mnst  have  upon  the 
peace  and  unity  of  the  Church ;  therefore, 

''  1.  Resolved,  That  we  have  viewed,  wdth  deep 
regret  and  pain,  the  introduction  into  the  highest 
judicatory  of  the  Church,  of  questions  wholly 
civil  and  political,  and  with  w^hich  ecclesiastical 
assemblies  have  no  right  to  interfere. 

''  2.  Resolved,  That  the  course  pursued  by  the 
majority  in  the  present  General  Conference,  has 
evinced  a  fixed  determination  to  drive  the  minor- 
ity into  a  secession  from  the  body  ecclesiastic. 

"3.  Resolved,  That  w^e  highly  approve  the  digni- 
fied, manly,  and  Christian  firmness  exhibited  by 
the  delegates  from  the  Southern  and  South-w^est- 
ern  Conferences,  in  the  trying  position  in  which 
they  have  been  placed. 

"4.  Resolved,  That  we  entertain  the  highest  es- 
teem and  veneration  for  our  beloved  and  faithful 
Bishop,  the  Rev.  James  0.  Andrew — that  we 
deeply  sympathize  in  the  affliction  to  which  his 
feelings  have  been  subjected,  by  the  reckless  and 
tyrannical  conduct  of  a  majority  of  the  General 
Conference — and  that  we  highly  approve  his  dig- 
nified and  Christian  bearing  throughout  the  whole 
transaction. 

"5.  Resolved,  That  we  regard  the  action  of  the 
majority  of  the  General  Conference  in  the  case  of 
the  Rev.  Bishop  Andrew,  as  a  gross  and  flagrant 
violation  of  the  constitution  and  Discipline  of  the 


390  Organization  of  the 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  as  such  nidi  and 
void,  and  that  it  is  the  sense  and  desire  of  this 
meeting  that  Bishop  Andrew  continue  the  exer- 
cise of  his  Episcopal  office. 

"  6.  Resolved,  That  in  view  of  the  late  action  of 
the  General  Conference,  the  present  union  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ought  to  be  immedi- 
aiely  dissolved,  and  w^e  look  with  confidence  and 
hope  to  the  Southern  and  South-western  Confer- 
ences to  form  a  Southern  organization  as  soon  as 
possible. 

"  7.  Resolved,  That  we  recommend  to  our  breth- 
ren, the  male  members  of  our  Churches,  through- 
out the  South  and  South-west,  to  hold  meetings, 
and  express  their  views  on  this  action  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  as  early  as  possible."'^' 

At  Norfolk  and  Fincastle,  Virginia,  at  Beaufort, 
Concord,  Newbern,  and  Wadesboro,  North  Caro- 
lina, at  Charlotte  and  Marion,  South  Carolina, 
at  Milledgeville,  Columbus,  Newnan,  La  Grange, 
Perry,  Savannah,  and  Augusta,  Georgia,  at  Tus- 
kaloosa  and  Greensboro,  Alabama,  at  New  Orleans, 
Louisiana,  and  at  Nashville,  Tennessee,  as  well  as 
in  Kentucky  and  other  States,  meetings  were  held 
and  resolutions  adopted  expressive  of  sympathy 
with  Bishop  Andrew,  and  the  deepest  dissatisfac- 
tion with  the  action  of  the  General  Conference,  jus- 

*  Western  Christian  Advocate,  August  9,  1844. 


3L  E,  Church,  South.  391 

tif^'in2  the  deleG:ates  from  the  South  for  their  manly 
and  dignified  course,  demanding  immediate  separa- 
tion from  the  North,  and  declaring  that  the  contin- 
uance any  longer  in  ecclesiastical  connection  with 
the  M.  E.  Church  would  imperil  the  existence  of 
Methodism  in  the  South. 

Long  before  the  meeting  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, it  became  apparent  that  the  necessity  for  a 
separation  from  the  M.  E.  Church  was  as  impor- 
tant as  Methodism  was  dear  to  the  ministry  and 
membership  of  the  Church  in  the  slaveholding 
States. 

It  was  not  only  obvious  to  the  Church  in  the 
South  that  separation  was  inevitable,  but  leading 
men  in  the  North  foresaw  this  result.  In  the 
Western  Christian  Advocate  of  August  16,  1844, 
the  Editor,  the  Rev.  Charles  Elliott,  D.D.,  said: 
^'Calculating,  then,  from  present  appearances,  we 
see  no  other  prospect  than  that  the  South  will  form 
an  independent  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

Indeed,  Dr.  ElUott,  w^iatever  may  have  been, 
his  subsequent  views,  at  this  date  became  a  cham- 
pion for  the  division  of  the  Church.  In  the  same 
editorial  from  which  the  above  extract  is  taken 
he  says: 

"We  may  be  wrong  in  our  view;  but  we  con- 
fess we  can  see  no  injury  that  will  accrue  to  re- 
ligion from  this  new  organization,  or  rather  modi- 
fication or  adjustment  of 'the  old  one.    At  an  early 


392  Organization  of  the 

age,  Christianity  was  resolved  into  many  distinct 
connectional  organizations,  called  Churches,  such 
as  the  Churches  of  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  Alexan- 
dria, Rome.  EA^en  in  the  Established  Church  of 
England,  there  is  the  Church  of  Ireland,  and  Eng- 
land, and  that  of  England  is  divided  into  two 
archiepiscopal  dioceses,  possessing  peculiar  inde- 
pendent powers.  Even  Methodism  has  given 
examples  of  similar  character.  There  is  the 
British  Conference,  the  Irish  Conference,  the 
Canadian  Conference,  all  acting  independently — 
all  cooperating — all  in  friendly  relations.  Our 
Church  is  actually  become  unwieldy  in  conse- 
quence of  its  great  size,  and  the  vast  extent  of 
territory  over  which  it  is  spread,  with  people  en- 
tertaining different  views  on  topics  calculated  to 
create  different  action.  Nor  can  we  see  any  more 
evil  that  can  arise  from  dividing  the  Church  into 
two  great  independent  ecclesiastical  confederations, 
than  (comparing  small  with  greater)  in  dividing 
classes.  Circuits,  Stations,  Districts,  Conferences, 
etc.  We  know  that  another  division  or  separa- 
tion may  follow  in  time.  But  this  is  no  more  to 
be  deplored  than  that  the  two  Circuits  made  out 
of  the  old  one  must  again  be  divided,  and  then 
there  will  be  three  or  four  in  the  place  of  one, 
because  the  number  of  souls  added  to  the  Church 
is  so  great  that  these  divisions  are  necessary. 
Nor  can  we  see  wherein  missionary  operations 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  393 

will  be  less,  but  greater.  Besides,  our  General 
Conference,  under  the  present  organization,  will 
soon  be  so  large  as  to  become  an  unwieldy  body ; 
and  if  the  ratio  of  representation  be  diminished, 
then  representation  itself  must  be  almost  done 
away  by  reducing  it. 

"We  may  be  almost  alone  in  our  views.  We 
barely  expressed  the  sentiment  at  General  Con- 
ference, not  having  the  fortitude,  or  rather  the 
gift,  of  arguing  our  views  in  such  an  assembly. 
We  do  not  utter  those  things  now  to  enter  into 
controversy  with  any  person  on  this  topic.  Still 
it  may  not  be  amiss  to  look  over,  after  awhile,  the 
hktory  of  the  Church  in  reference  to  such  organi- 
zations. Indeed,  we  are  persuaded  that  distinct 
organizations  must  exist  in  the  nature  of  things  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States;  and  that  necessity  and  Scrijjtiire  principles 
"will  inevitably  enforce  them.  We  believe  that  the 
unity,  purity,  power,  and  extending  influence  of 
Methodism  may  be  promoted  by  these  means. 
Such  thesis  we  are  prepared  to  maintain;  but  we 
wish  not  to  take  the  least  advantage  of  our  posi- 
tion as  editor  to  support  them." 

At  a  later  period,  it  is  true  Dr.  Elliott  avowed 
a  different  doctrine,  and  used  the  influence  of  his 
official  position  to  defeat  the  Plan  of  Separation. 
The  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  the  central 
organ  of  the  Church,  had  for  its  editor  Dr.  Thomas 
17* 


394  Organization  of  the 

E.  Bond,  a  writer  of  distinguished  ability.  This 
paper  had  an  extensive  circulation  throughout  the 
South,  and  its  columns  were  replete  with  edito- 
rials denouncing  the  Plan  of  Separation  as  uncon- 
stitutional, and  avowing  that  no  necessity  existed 
for  a  separate  ecclesiastical  organization.  Other 
papers  in  the  North,  published  in  the  interest  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  followed  in  the 
wake  of  Dr.  Bond.  Whether  those  Church  orscans 
hoped  to  prevent  the  division  of  the  Church,  as 
provided  for  in  the  Plan  of  Separation,  or  whether 
their  object  was  to  arrest  the  heavy  tide  of  oppo- 
sition, which  in  the  North  had  set  in  immediately 
after  the  General  Conference,  to  the  legislation  of 
that  body  in  the  cases  of  Mr.  Harding  and  Bishop 
Andrew,  and  which  threatened  to  overthrow  the 
Church  in  the  Northern  States,  we  may  not  de- 
cide. If  the  South  was  agitated,  the  North  was 
by  no  means  quiet.  Dissatisfaction  as  wide- 
spread as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America  existed,  and  if  the  Church  in  the  North 
had  at  that  time  been  consulted  there  is  scarcely 
a  doubt  that  the  action  of  the  General  Conference 
would  have  been  reversed,  and  the  connectional 
unity  of  the  Church  preserved. 

The  necessity  of  a  separation,  however,  was  not 
left  to  Northern  Church-journalists,  but  to  "the 
Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States." 
They,  and  not  the  North — either  individually,  in 


31.  E.   Churchy  South.  395 

their  press,  or  in  ecclesiastical  assemblies — were  to 
be  the  umpires  in  the  settlement  of  this  important 
question,  in  which  the  existence  of  Methodism  in 
the  South  was  involved. 

The  reference  of  this  question  to  the  Annual 
Conferences  was  eminently  proper.  The  resolu- 
tions adopted  in  some  of  the  primary  meetings 
were  severely  worded,  although  an  apology  may  be 
found  in  the  revolutionary  measures  against  which 
they  protested. 

Several  months  were  to  elapse  before  the  An- 
nual Conferences  would  convene,  and  during  that 
period  the  people  would  have  time  for  calm  delib- 
eration, and  the  j^reachers,  mingling  freely  in 
their  intercourse  with  the  laity,  would  become 
thoroughly  familiar  with  their  sentiments  and 
purposes. 

The  Kentucky  Conference  was  the  first  to  as- 
semble. On  the  11th  of  September  it  convened 
in  Bowling-green,  Kentucky.  A  committee  was 
appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the  state  of 
the  Church,  and,  after  mature  deliberation,  reported 
that  the  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  unavoidable,  unless  the  North  should 
make  reparation  for  past  injury,  and  give  assurance 
against  future  aggressions  on  the  rights  of  South- 
ern preachers  and  members. 

The  report  of  the  committee  was  adopted  by 
the  Conference  with  only  one  dissenting  voice. 


396  Organization  of  the 

The  action  of  the  Kentucky  Conference  found 
an  echo  in  the  heart  of  the  entire  Church  through- 
out the  South.  The  Annual  Conferences  in  the 
slaveholding  States  met  in  quick  succession,  and 
passed  resolutions  similar  to  those  adopted  by  the 
Kentucky  Conference.  The  Missouri,  Holston, 
Tennessee,  Memphis,  Mississippi,  Arkansas,  Vir- 
ginia, North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Indian 
Mission,  Georgia,  Florida,  Texas,  and  Alabama 
Conferences,  as  with  one  voice,  declared  that 
Methodism  in  the  South  could  no  longer  accom- 
plish its  work  of  doing  good,  if  the  unity  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  should  be  preserved. 
They  demanded  a  separation,  as  the  only  means 
of  preventing  the  wreck  of  every  hope  they 
had  cherished  "of  spreading  scriptural  holiness 
over  these  lands."* 

The  continual  agitation  of  the  question  of 
slavery  had  previously  done  much  to  weaken  the 
bonds  of  union  between  the  two  sections,  and  if 
peace  could  be  restored  at  all,  and  become  perma- 
nent, it  could  only  be  procured  by  the  division 
provided  for  in  the  Plan  of  Separation. 

The  position  of  Bishoi:>  Andrew^  in  the  mean- 
time was  anomalous.  Notwithstanding  the  action 
of  the  General  Conference,  requesting  him  to  de- 

*For  the  action  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  see 
Appendix  B. 


31.  E,  Church,  SoutL  397 

sist  from  the  exercise  of  Episcopal  functions,  it 
was  resolved  that  his  name  should  still  "stand 
in  the  Minutes,  Hymn-book,  and  Discipline,"  as  a 
Bishop  in  the  Church;  "that  the  rule  in  rela- 
tion to  the  support  of  a  Bishop  and  his  family 
applied  to"  him,  and  "that  Avhether  any  and  in 
what  Avork"  he  should  "be  employed,"  should  "be 
determined  by  his  own  decision  and  action  in  re- 
lation to  the  previous  action  of  this  Conference  in 
his  case." 

The  plan  of  Episcopal  visitation  for  the  next 
four  years  was  made  out  and  published  without 
assigning  Bishop  Andrew  to  any  work. 

"  The  fact  was  this,  the  board  of  Bishops  agreed 
that  Bishop  Andrew  should  be  taken  into  the 
plan  of  Episcopal  visitation,  provided  he  should 
apply  for  work,  and  to  meet  that  contingency  they 
prepared  a  second  plan  of  visitation  including 
Bishop  Andrew,  which  plan  was  to  be  published 
in  place  of  the  first,  in  case  he  made  such  appli- 
cation. This  reserved  'plan  was  committed  to  the^ 
hands  of  Bishop  Soule,  to  be  published  if  Bishop 
Andrew  should  make  application,  in  writing,  for 
Episcopal  work.  But  of  all  this  arrangement 
Bishop  Andrew  had  no  notice  whatever,  except  in 
vague  rumor.  In  this  condition  matters  remained 
for  some  months.  For  a  time  the  general  current 
of  opinion  among  the  Bishop's  friends  seemed  to 
be  against  his  performing  any  Episcopal  labor; 


398  Organization  of  the 

for  it  was  more  than  intimated  that  ii  he  did  so, 
he  would  be  impeached  for  a  viohition  of  the  ex- 
pressed will  or  'sense'  of  the  General  Conference. 
When,  however,  it  appeared  to  be  settled  that  the 
Bishop  would  not  take  work,  there  were  not  want- 
ing among  those  who  favored  his  suspension,  men 
who  urged  the  propriety,  and  even  duty,  of  his 
performing  Episcopal  labor.  The  measure  was 
urged  in  one  or  more  of  the  Northern  Church 
papers,  and  in  a  more  private  way  it  was  said 
that  as  the  Bishop  was  supported  by  the  Church, 
he  had  no  right  to  withhold  his  labors,  and  it  was 
strongly  suggested  that  such  neglect  of  officia] 
duty  might  very  properly  constitute  just  ground 
of  impeachment. 

"At  this  crisis.  Bishop  Andrew  received  a  let 
ter  from  Bishop  Soule,  inviting  him  into  the  field . 
This  was  the  first  authentic  information  Bishop 
Andrew  received  of  the  arrangement  entered  into 
by  the  Bishops  at  the  close  of  the  General  Con- 
ference." 

The  letter  from  Bishop  Soule  is  as  follows: 

"To  the  Rev.  James  O.  Andrew,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church : 

"Lebanon,  Ohio,  Sept.  26,  1844. 
"My  Dear  Bishop: — Since  the  close  of  the  re- 
cent eventful  session  of  the  General  Conference, 
I  have  been  watching,  with  deep  solicitude,  the 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  399 

'signs  of  the  times/  and  tracing  causes,  as  far 
as  I  was  able,  to  their  ultimate  issues.  Some 
general  results  growing  out  of  the  action  of  the 
Conference,  it  required  no  prophetic  vision  to 
foresee.  To  prevent  the  measures  Avhich,  in  my 
judgment,  would  lead  to  these  results  with  de- 
monstrative certainty,  I  labored  day  and  night 
with  prayers  and  tears,  till  the  deed  was  done — 
the  eventful  resolution  passed.  From  that  peril- 
ous hour  my  hands  hung  down,  discouragement 
filled  my  heart,  and  the  last  hope  of  the  imif//  of 
our  beloved  Zion  well  -  nigh  fled  from  earth  to 
heaven.  My  last  effort  to  avert  the  threatening 
storm  appears  in  the  joint  recommendation  of  all 
the  Bishops  to  suspend  all  action  in  the  case  until 
the  ensuing  General  Conference.  At  the  presen- 
tation of  this  document  some  brethren  perceived 
that  instead  of  light,  the  darkness  around  them 
was  increased  tenfold.  Others  ivill  judge,  have 
judged  already.  And  those  who  come  after  us 
will  examine  the  history  of  our  acts.  The  docu- 
ment was  resjKctfullg  laid  upon  the  table,  probably 
under  the  influence  of  deep  regret  that  'our  Bish- 
ops should  enter  the  arena  of  controversy  in  the 
General  Conference.'  But  it  cannot — does  not 
sleep  there.  I  have  heard  many  excellent  minis- 
ters, and  distinguished  laymen  in  our  own  Com- 
munion, not  in  the  slave  States,  refer  to  it  as  a 
measure  of  sound  Christian  policy,  and  with  deep 


400  Organkation  of  the 

regret  that  the  Conference  had  not  adopted  it. 
Many  of  our  Northern  brethren  seem  now  deeply 
to  deplore  the  division  of  the  Church  0  that, 
there  had  h^Qn  forethought  as  well  as  afterthought ! 
I  have  seen  various  plans  of  compromise  for  the 
adjustment  of  our  difficulties  and  preservation  of 
the  unity  of  the  Church.  The  most  prominent 
plan  provides  that  a  fundamental  article  in  the 
treaty  shall  be,  That  no  abolitionist  or  slaveholder 
shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  a  Bishop  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Alas  for  us !  Where 
are  our  men  of  wisdom,  of  experience?  Where 
are  our  fathers  and  brethren  who  have  analyzed 
the  elements  of  civil  or  ecclesiastical  compacts? 
who  have  studied  man  in  his  social  relations? 
Who  are  the  ^high  contracting  parties,'  and  will 
they  create  a  caste  in  the  constitutional  eldership 
in  the  Church  of  Christ?  Will  this  tend  to  har- 
monize and  consolidate  the  body?  Brethren 
North  and  South  will  knoto  that  the  cause  must  be 
removed,  that  the  effect  may  cease.  That  the 
fountain  must  be  dried  up  before  the  stream  will 
cease  to  flow.  But  I  must  pause  on  this  subject. 
The  time  has  not  fully  arrived  for  me  to  define 
my  position  in  regard  to  the  causes  and  remedies 
of  the  evils  which  now  agitate  and  distract  our 
once  united  and  peaceful  body.  Still  I  trust  I 
have  given  such  proofs,  at  different  times,  and 
under  different  circumstances,  as  not  to  render  my 


M.  E.   Church,  South,  401 

position  doiiUfid  in  the  judgment  of  sober,  dis- 
criminating men,  either  North  or  South.  The 
General  Conference  spoke  in  the  language  of  wis- 
dom and  sound  Christian  policy  when,  in  the  pas- 
toral address  of  1836,  it -solemnly  and  affection- 
ately advised  the  ministers  and  members  of  the 
Church  to  abstain  from  all  agitation  of  the  ex- 
citing subject  of  slavery  and  its  abolition.  Nor 
was  the  adoption  of  tlie  Report  of  the  commit- 
tee on  the  memorial  of  our  brethren  from  a  por- 
tion of  Virginia,  within  the  bounds  of  the  Bal- 
timore Conference,  less  distinguished  by  the  same 
characteristics  of  our  holy  Christianity,  and  the 
sound  policy  of  our  Discipline  in  providing  for 
the  case. 

"It  has  often  been  asked  through  the  public 
journals,  and  otherwise,  'why  Bishop  Andrew 
was  not  assigned  his  regular  portion  of  the  Episco- 
pal work  for  the  four  ensuing  years,  on  the  plan 
of  visitation  formed  by  the  Bishops  and  published 
in  the  official  papers?'  It  devolves  on  the  ma- 
jority of  my  colleagues  in  the  Episcopacy,  (if  in- 
deed we  have  an  Episcopacy,)  rather  than  on  me, 
to  answer  this  question.  Our  difference  of  opin- 
ion in  the  premises,  I  have  no  doubt,  was  in 
Christian  honesty  and  sincerity.  Dismissing  all 
farther  reference  to  the  painful  past  till  I  see  you 
in  the  South,  let  me  now  most  cordially  invite  you 
to  meet  me  at  the  Virginia  Conference  at  Lynch- 


402  Organization  of  the 

burg,  November  13th,  1844,  should  it  please  a 
gracious  Providence  to  enable  me  to  be  there. 
And  I  earnestly  desire  that  you  would,  if  practi- 
cable, make  your  arrangements  to  be  with  me  at 
all  the  Southern  Canferences  in  my  division  of 
the  work  for  the  present  year,  where  I  am  sure 
your  services  wall  not  be  ^unacceptable.'  I  am 
the  more  solicitous  that  you  should  be  at  Lynch- 
burg from  the  fact  that  my  present  state  of  health 
creates  a  doubt  whether  I  shall  be  able  to  reach 
it.  I  am  now  laboring,  and  have  been  for  nearly 
three  weeks,  under  the  most  severe  attack  of 
asthma  which  I  have  had  for  six  or  seven  years — 
some  nights  unable  to  lie  down  for  a  moment. 
Great  prostration  of  the  vital  functions,  and  in- 
deed of  the  whole  physical  system,  is  the  conse- 
quence. But  no  effort  of  mine  shall  be  wanting 
to  meet  my  work;  and  the  inducements  to  effort 
are  greatly  increased  by  the  present  position  of 
the  Church,  and  the  hope  of  relief  from  my  present 
affliction  by  the  influence  of  a  milder  and  more 
congenial  climate.  I  cannot  conclude  without  an 
expression  of  sincere  sympathy  for  you,  and  the 
sharer  of  your  joys  and  sorrows,  in  the  deep 
afflictions  through  w^hich  you  have  been  called 
to  pass.  May  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
sustain  you  both! 

"Yours  with  sentiments  of  affection  and  esteem, 

"Joshua  Soule." 


M,  E,  Church  SoutJu  403 


"This  invitation  of  Bishop  Soule  called  down 
on  him  severe  censure  from  the  North.  Dr. 
Elliott,  Dr.  Bond,  Dr.  Bangs,  and  others,  de- 
nounced the  measure  as  not  only  unauthorized, 
but  his^h-handed,  and  in  contravention  of  the  de- 
cision  of  the  General  Conference  and  the  Board 
of  Bishops.  That  it  contravened  no  action  of  the 
General  Conference  is  very  clear,  from  the  fact, 
that  whether  the  Bishop  should  labor  or  not  was 
to  depend  on  his  own  decision.  That  decision 
was  now  had,  and  as  the  General  Conference  had 
prescribed  no  particular  mode  in  which  it  should  be 
obtained  or  given,  there  could  have  been  no  infrac- 
tion of  the  law  or  expressed  will  of  that  body  in 
the  proceeding. 

"As  regards  the  Board  of  Bishops,  the  spirit  of 
their  decision  w^as,  that  if  Bishop  Andrew  should 
signify  a  willingness  to  take  work  on  the  Episco- 
pal plan,  it  should  be  given  him;  and  the  letter  of 
that  decision  was,  that  he  should  have  work  as- 
signed him  when  he  should  make  written  applica- 
tion for  it.  That  the  spirit  of  the  decision  w^as 
fully  met  when  he  accepted  Bishop  Soule's  invi- 
tation to  aid  him  in  his  circuit  of  Conferences, 
can  hardly  be  doubted;  and  as  that  acceptance 
was  a  written  one,  and  as  the  Bishops  had  not 
prohibited  the  making  of  an  inquiry  or  the  giving 
of  an  invitation,  wdiich  might  call  forth  an  expres- 
sion of  willingness  to  Libor,  or  an  application  for 


404  Organkation  of  the 

work,  both  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  decision 
appear  to  have  been  sufficiently  fulfilled." 

Bishop  Soule  explains  and  defends  his  own 
course  in  this  matter,  in  the  following  letter, 
which  was  published  in  the  Southern  Christian 
Advocate,  dated 

"Augusta,  Ga.,  January  4,  1845. 
"Dear  Brother: — In  the  editorial  of  the  Chris- 
tian Advocate  and  Journal  of  the  18th  ultimo,  I 
find  the  following  assertion  with  special  reference 
to  myself:  'He,  therefore,  claims  for  the  Episco- 
pacy— nay,  for  any  one  of  the  Bishops — a  right 
to  decide  on  the  legality  of  any  act  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  to  veto  it,  if,  in  his  judgment, 
it  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  Discipline  of  the 
Church.  Thus  a  new  issue  is  added  to  the  one 
which  has  agitated  the  Church  so  fearfully,  and 
one  on  which  it  is  impossible  to  come  to  a  compro- 
mise, without  changing  the  cardinal  principles  of 
our  ecclesiastical  economy.'  This  is  a  plain  and 
positive  assertion  of  Dr.  Bond,  relative  to  what  I 
claim  as  the  right  of  Bishops  or  ani/  one  of  them. 
The  Doctor  must  permit  me,  as  plainly  and  posi- 
tively, to  assert  the  direct  converse  of  his  position, 
and  thus  change  the  'new  issue'  from  the  North- 
ern and  Southern  departments  of  the  Church,  to 
Mm  and  mijself  with  the  hope  that  he  may  enjoy 
the  happiness  of  still  believing  that  'there  will  be 


M,  E.  Church,  South,  405 

no  division/  and  yet  shout  ^ glory  to  God'  over 
propositions  for  compromise,  without  'changing 
the  cardinal  principles  of  our  ecclesiastical  econo- 
my.' And  I  assure  the  Doctor,  and  all  concerned, 
that  I  will  heartily  join  with  him  in  the  shout, 
when  a  plan  of  compromise  shall  be  proposed 
which  does  not  invade  chartered  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  any  'grade'  of  our  ministry  or  member- 
ship. But  that  the  Doctor  should  attempt  to 
make  me  the  author  of  a  'new  issue'  in  this  con- 
troversy, and  that  issue  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
preclude  all  compromise  without  a  change  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  our  Church  polity,  and 
thus  transfer  the  responsibility  of  the  results  of 
the  controversy  from  the  parties  concerned  to  me, 
I  cannot  but  regard  as  at  variance  with  those 
principles  which  I  have  been  taught  to  believe 
should  govern  the  actions  of  Christian  ministers 
toward  each  other.  The  Doctor  must'* not,  he  can- 
not, make  me  the  'scapegoat,'  to  bear  away  this 
responsibility  from  those  to  whom  it  justly  belongs. 
"I  assert,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  I 
never  have  claimed,  either  for  myself,  or  any  one 
of  the  Bishops,  or  all  of  them  conjointly,  the 
*  right'  which  Dr.  Bond  charges  on  me  as  claim- 
ing. And  now  I  cannot  but  sincerely  and  ar- 
dently desire  that  this  'new  issue'  being  thus 
fairly  made,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  exclusively 
between  the  Doctor  and  myself,  it  may  not  be 


406  Organization  of  the 

made  a  matter  of  exciting  agitation  in  the  Church, 
in  addition  to  all  which  has  'so  fearfully'  agitated 
her  before,  at  least  till  the  point  is  settled  between 
us,  on  which  the  'new  issue'  is  now  made. 

"It  is  A^ery  possible  that  in  writing  my  Iclter 
of  invitation  to  Bishop  Andrew  to  meet  me  at  the 
Virginia  Conference,  and  accompany  me  to  the 
others  in  my  Southern  tour,  with  a  view  to  his 
affording  me  aid  in  the  superintend ency,  I  may 
have  traveled  out  of  the  record  of  the  official  in- 
structions of  the  General  Conference  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  'action  of  the  Superintendents  in 
the  Bishop's  case,  according  to  Dr.  Bond's  'sense' 
of  those  instructions.  But  according  to  my  hcst 
judgment  of  those  instructions,  given  to  the 
Bishops,  not  to  Dr.  Bond,  I  have  done  nothing  but 
what  is  fully  provided  for,  and  covered  by  the 
record.  And  I  trust  I  may  presume,  without  os- 
tentation, tMat  I  have  as  good  a  'right'  to  judge 
of  the  meaning  and  import  of  such  instructions  as 
my  good  friend  of  the  Christian  Advocate  and 
Journal;  especially  as  I  am  amenable,  not  to  him, 
but  to  the  General  Conference.  And  I  confess  I 
should  hesitate  to  charge  Dr.  Bond  before  the 
Church  and  the  community,  with  'claiming  a  right 
to  veto  the  acts  of  the  General  Conference,'  or  of 
disregarding  official  instructions  relating  to  his 
office,  because  in  my  judgment  he  had  not  kept 
within  the  official  record.     But  it  may  be  the 


31.  E.   ChurcL  South.  407 


Doctor  thinks  that  his  office  requires  him  to  keep 
us  all  right. 

"I  might  have  thought  that  the  Doctors  office 
required  him  to  take  a  more  decided  and  active 
position  in  sustaining  and  carrying  out  the  plan 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  for  the  amica- 
ble separation  of  the  Church,  and  equitable  divi- 
sion of  the  funds;  and  to  have  guarded  his  col- 
umns against  the  hostile  attacks  which  were  made 
both  upon  the  Conference  and  the  measure.  But 
doubtless  he  acted  in  strict  conformity  to  his  sense 
of  the  duties  of  his  office,  in  regard  both  to  the 
Conference  and  their  action  in  the  premises.  It 
certainly  could  not  have  been  the  sense  of  the 
General  Conference,  that  any  of  their  editors 
should  pursue  a  course  which  was  either  designed 
or  calculated  to  defeat  their  own  official  acts;  es- 
pecially one  which  was  adopted  with  so  great 
unanimity,  and  truly  Christian  sympathy  and 
kindness,  as  the  one  here  alluded  to.  But  it  does 
not  belong  to  my  office  to  accuse  Dr.  Bond  before 
the  Church  or  the  public,  however  I  might  differ 
from  him  in  judgment  with  regard  to  his  course. 
He  and  myself  are  both  strictly  ^amenable'  to  a 
constitutional  tribunal;  and  with  all  deference  to 
the  Doctor's  age,  and  talents,  and  office,  and  high 
respectability,  both  in  the  civil  and  religious  com- 
munity, I  must  be  permitted  to  question  his 
'right'  to  prejudge  me,  either  by  virtue   of  his 


408  Organization  of  the 

office,  or  otherwise,  and  that  too  before  I  can  be 
heard  in  my  own  defense.  If  the  Doctor  thinks, 
under  all  these  circu7nstances,  that  such  a  course  is 
calculated  to  effect  the  unity  and  peace  of  the 
Church,  an  object  which  he  so  ardently  desires, 
and  at  the  first  dawaiing  prospect  of  which  he 
shouts  ^glory  to  God,'  I  can  only  say  that  in  this, 
as  well  as  in  regard  to  the  high  frohability  of  the 
division  of  the  Church,  on  which  we  have  freely 
expressed  our  opinions  before,  we  differ  widely  in 
judgment,  and  future  events  wdll  show  which  of 
us  is  in  error. 

"Very  respectfully,  Joshua  Soule." 

After  Bishop  Andrew  had  been  laboring  with 
Bishop  Soule  for  some  months,  in  attending  the 
Southern  Conferences,  four  of  the  Bishops  made 
the  following  publication,  which,  as  it  properly 
belongs  to  this  history,  is  here  inserted : 

"Deak  Brethren: — The  time  has  arrived,  when, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  undersigned,  it  is  proper 
they  should  respond  to  calls  which  have  been 
made,  both  privately  and  publicly,  for  authentic 
information  in  regard  to  the  action  of  a  majority 
of  the  Superintendents,  by  which  the  name  of 
Bishop  Andrew  was  omitted  from  the  Plan  of 
Episcopal  Visitation,  which  was  arranged  at  the 
close   of  the  late  General  Conference,  and  pub- 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  409 

lislied  in  the  Christian  Advocate  and  other  official 
journals  of  the  Church.  The  statements  which 
follow,  will,  it  is  believed,  place  that  action  and 
the  grounds  thereof  in  a  view  intelligible  to  all; 
and  beyond  this,  they  have  neither  desire  nor  in- 
tention to  go  in  this  communication. 

"On  the  first  day  of  June  last  the  following 
preamble  and  resolution  were  adopted  by  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church : 

"'Whereas,  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids 
the  doing  any  thing  calculated  to  destroy  our 
itinerant  general  superintendency,  and  whereas 
Bishop  Andrew  has  become  connected  with  slavery 
by  marriage  and  otherwise,  and  this  act  having 
drawn  after  it  circumstances  which,  in  the  estima- 
tion of  the  General  Conference,  greatly  embarrass 
the  exercise  of  his  office  as  an  itinerant  general 
superintendent,  if  not  in  some  places  entirely 
prevent  it;  therefore, 

"  'Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  the  General 
Conference,  that  he  desist  from  the  exercise  of  his 
office  so  long  as  this  impediment  remains.' " 

On  the  6th  of  June  the  following  note  was 
presented  to  the  General  Conference: 

"Reverend  and  Dear  Brethren: — As  the  case 
of  Bishop  Andrew  unavoidably  involves  the  future 
action  of  the  Superintendents,  which  in  their  judg- 
ment, in  the  present  position  of  the  Bishop, 
18 


410  Organisation  of  the 

they  have  no  discretion  to  decide  upon,  they 
resjoectfully  request  of  this  General  Conference 
official  instruction,  in  answer  to  the  following 
questions : 

"1.  Shall  Bishop  Andrew's  name  remain  as 
it  now  stands  in  the  Minutes,  Hymn-book,  and 
Discipline,  or  shall  it  be  struck  off  these  official 
records  ? 

"2.  How  shall  the  Bishop  obtain  his  support? 
as  provided  for  in  the  form  of  Discipline,  or  in 
some  other  way? 

"3.  What  work,  if  any,  may  the  Bishop  per- 
form? and  how  shall  he  be  appointed  to  his  work? 

"Joshua  Soule, 
"Elijah  Hedding, 
"Beverly  Waugh, 
"Thos.  a.  Morris." 

To  which  the  General  Conference  responded : 

"1.  Resolved  J  As  the  sense  of  this  Conference, 
That  Bishop  Andrew's  name  stand  in  the  Minutes, 
Hymn-book,  and  Discipline,  as  formerly. 

"2.  That  the  rule  in  reference  to  the  support 
of  a  Bishop  and  his  family,  applies  to  Bishop  An- 
drew. 

"3.  That  whether  in  any,  and  if  in  any,  w^hat 
work.  Bishop  Andrew  be  employed,  is  to  be  deter- 
mined by  his  own  decision  and  action,  in  relation 
to  the  previous  action  of  this  Conference  in  his 


case." 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  411 

In  view  of  the  aforesaid  proceedings  of  the 
General  Conference,  the  undersigned,  on  the  11th 
of  June,  appended  their  names  to  a  paper  written 
in  the  words  which  follow : 

"  It  is  our  opinion  in  regard  to  the  action  of  the 
late  General  Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  that  it  was  designed  by  that  body  to  de- 
volve the  responsibility  of  the  exercise  of  the 
functions  of  his  office  exclusively  on  himself.  In 
the  absence  of  Bishop  Andrew^  at  the  time  of  ar- 
ranging the  Plan  of  Episcopal  Visitation  for  the 
ensuing  four  years,  and  he  not  having  notified  us 
of  his  desire,  or  purpose,  with  respect  to  it,  we 
should  regard  ourselves  as  acting  in  contravention 
of  the  expressed  will  of  the  General  Conference, 
if  we  apportioned  to  Bishop  Andrew  any  definite 
portion  thereof.  But  if  he  shall  hereafter  make 
a  written  application  for  a  portion  of  the  general 
oversight,  w^e  should  feel  ourselves  justified  in  as- 
signing it  to  him. 

"After  this  paper  w^as  signed,  and  before  the 
parting  of  the  Superintendents,  it  was  agreed  to 
make  out  a  reserved  Plan  of  EjDiscopal  Visitation, 
including  Bishop  Andrew  in  the  apportionment  of 
the  work  thereof,  which  was  done,  and  intrusted 
to  the  safe  keeping  of  Bishop  Soule,  with  an  ex- 
plicit understanding,  that  if  he  should  receive 
from  Bishop  Andrew  a  written  application  for  his 
portion  of  the  general  superintendence,  he  was 


412  Organizaiion  of  the 

then,  and  in  that  event,  to  publish  the  second  or 
reserved  plan  in  immediate  connection  with  the 
said  application,  that  the  reason  for  the  substitu- 
tion of  the  second  plan  might  accompany  its  pub- 
lication. Such  was  the  action  of  the  undersigned 
in  the  case  presented,  and  such  the  ground  on 
which  it  was  based.  At  present,  this  is  all  that 
they  feel  themselves  called  to  make  public. 

"Elijah  Hedding, 
"B.  Waugh, 
"Thomas  A.  Morris, 
"L.  L.  Hamline." 


M.  E,  Church,  South  413 


CHAPTER    VI. 

Excitement  along  the  Border — Rev.  Joseph  S.  Tomlinson, 
D.D. — The  Minerva  Circuit,  Kentucky  Conference — Con- 
vention meets  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  on  the  first  day 
of  May,  1845 — Of  whom  composed — Bishops  Soule,  An- 
drew, and  Morris  present — Bishop  Soule's  address  to  the 
Convention — Committee  appointed  to  consider  the  neces- 
sity of  a  Southern  Organization — Resolutions  offered  by 
Dr.  Winans — B.  M.  Drake's  Resolution — Resolution  of- 
fered by  Drs.  Smith  and  Pierce — Resolution  offered  by 
James  E.  Evans — Withdrawn — Dr.  Smith's  Resolution 
adopted — Report  of  the  Committee  on  Organization — Its 
adoption — Resolutions  requesting  Bishops  Soule  and  An- 
drew to  unite  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South 
— Reply  of  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew — Pastoral  Ad- 
dress— Adjournment  of  the  Convention — Border  Confer- 
ences. 

With  remarkable  unanimity  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, throughout  the  slaveholding  States,  approved 
the  course  pursued  by  their  delegates  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  Deprecating,  as  they  did,  the 
prospect  of  a  division  of  the  Church,  they  never- 
theless preferred  it  to  the  surrender  of  rights  and 
privileges  which  were  a  common   heritage   in  a 


414  Organization  of  the 

Church,  to  the  prosperity  of  which  they  had 
equally,  with  the  North,  contributed  the  w^ealth 
of  their  devotion  and  their  lives.  In  language 
unmistakable,  they  declared  that  unless  reparation 
should  be  made  for  past  injury,  and  assurance 
given  that  the  rights  of  both  ministers  and  laymen 
could  be  effectually  secured,  according  to  the  Dis- 
cipline, against  future  aggressions,  the  contem- 
plated division  w^ould  be  inevitable. 

In  the  action  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences 
provision  was  made  for  holding  a  Convention  of 
delegates  from  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding 
States,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  Kentucky,  in 
compliance  with  "  the  recommendation  of  the 
Southern  and  South-western  delegates  in  the  late 
General  Conference."  To  this  Convention  dele- 
gates were  elected  in  the  ratio  of  "one  delegate 
for  every  eleven  members  of  Conferences." 

The  question  of  a  Convention  not  only  elicited 
considerable  discussion  in  the  Northern  Methodist 
press,  but  extraordinary  efforts  were  made  to  de- 
feat its  object.  The  Plan  of  Separation  had  pro- 
vided that  "all  the  societies,  stations,  and  Con- 
ferences adhering  to  the  Church  in  the  South,  by 
a  vote  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  said  so- 
cieties, stations,  and  Conferences,  shall  remain 
under  the  unmolested  pastoral  care  of  the  South- 
ern Church;  and  the  ministers  of  the  M.  E. 
Church   shall   in    no    wise   attempt    to    organize 


M,  E.  Church,  South,  415 

Churches  or  societies  within  the  limits  of  the 
Church,  South,  nor  shall  they  attempt  to  exercise 
any  pastoral  oversight  therein;  it  being  understood 
that  the  ministry  of  the  South  reciprocally  ob- 
serve the  same  rule  in  relation  to  stations,  socie- 
ties, and  Conferences  adhering,  by  vote  of  a  ma- 
jority, to  the  M.  E.  Church ;  provided,  also,  that 
this  rule  shall  apply  only  to  societies,  stations,  and 
Conferences  bordering  on  the  line  of  division,  and 
not  to  interior  charges,  which  shall,  in  all  cases, 
be  left  to  the  care  of  that  Church  within  whose 
territory  they  are  situated." 

This  privilege,  extended  to  ''  societies,  stations, 
and  Conferences"  on  the  border,  while  it  was  in- 
tended to  promote  the  harmony  of  the  Churches 
embraced  in  the  provision,  opened  the  door  for 
controversy  and  strife,  w^hich,  in  too  many  in- 
stances, resulted  in  the  religious  bankruptcy  and 
ruin  of  societies  on  the  border. 

The  Kentucky  Conference  embraced  the  entire 
State  of  Kentucky,  with  the  exception  of  a  small 
district  lying  South  of  the  Tennessee  River,  which 
was  included  in  the  Memphis  Conference.  Its 
Northern  and  Western  borders  extended  along  the 
Ohio  River  from  Catlettsburg  to  Smithland,  a  dis- 
tance of  nearly  seven  hundred  miles.  All  along 
this  border,  on  the  Kentucky  shore,  w^ere  beauti- 
ful towns,  in  which  Methodism  had  been  planted, 
and  where  it  had  grown  and  prospered.     On  the 


416  Organization  of  the 

opposite  shore  the  Kentucky  Conference  was  con- 
fronted by  the  Ohio,  the  Indiana,  and  the  Illinois 
Conferences.  To  the  Church  in  Kentucky,  under 
the  blessing  of  Heaven,  these  Conferences  were 
indebted  for  the  introduction  of  Methodism  among 
them.  The  men  who  first  bore  the  tidings  of  a 
Redeemer's  love  beyond  the  beautiful  Ohio,  to 
what  are  now  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Il- 
linois, were  sent  out  from  Kentucky.  The  Rev. 
Joseph  S.  Tomlinson,  D.D.,  was  the  abolition 
leader  in  Kentucky.  He  w^as  the  President  of 
Augusta  College,  and  resided  in  Augusta,  a  pleas- 
ant and  flourishing  village  on  the  Ohio  River. 
The  College  over  which  he  presided  had  been  pat- 
ronized conjointly  by  the  Ohio  and  Kentucky  Con- 
ferences ;  the  former,  however,  had  turned  its 
attention  to  an  institution  of  learning  in  its  own 
State,  while  the  latter,  unable  to  sustain  Augusta 
College  alone,  had  accepted  a  flattering  invitation 
to  the  occupancy  of  the  Transylvania  University, 
located  in  Lexinjxton. 

In  Augusta,  Methodism  was  the  synonym  of  all 
that  was  good.  It  had  been  planted  there  by 
Walter  Griffith,  and  was  watered  by  the  labors  of 
Finley,  Trimble,  McCown,  Tomlinson,  and  Bas- 
com,  while  the  whole  surrounding  country  was 
under  its  benign  influence.  The  town  of  Augusta, 
as  a  preaching-place,  was  embraced  in  the  Minerva 
Circuit.     In  the  winter  previous  to  the  General 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  417 

Conference  of  1844,  an  extensive  revival  of  relig- 
ion, in  which  many  hundreds  were  awakened  and 
converted  to  God,  spread  over  the  Minerva  Cir- 
cuit. The  work  began  at  Mount  Zion,  a  few  miles 
south  of  Augusta,  on  Christmas-day.  From  Mount 
Zion  it  extended  to  Brooksville,  to  Minerva,  the 
Stone  Church,  Dover,  and  Augusta.  For  ninety 
days  and  nights,  without  intermission,  the  work 
went  on  in  this  circuit,  the  revival  influence  spread- 
ing all  over  it. 

On  the  8th  of  February,  previous  to  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Convention,  a  quarterly-meeting  was 
held  at  Mount  Zion  Church,  and  sundry  resolu- 
tions were  offered  by  Dr.  Tomlinson,  protesting 
against  the  division  of  the  Church  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, and  pledging,  in  case  of  division,  the 
continuance  of  that  circuit  in  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church.  These  resolutions  failed,  and  the 
following  were  offered  by  the  preacher  in  charge, 
and  adopted : 

"  1.  Resolved^  That  it  is  our  deliberate  judgment, 
that  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  virtually  depos- 
ing Bishop  Andrew,  and  also  their  action  affirm- 
ing the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  in 
the  case  of  the  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding,  are  not  sus- 
tained by  the  Discipline  of  our  Church,  and  that 
we  consider  these  proceedings  as  constituting  a 
highly  dangerous  precedent. 
18* 


418  Organization  of  the 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  we  deeply  regret  the  pros- 
peet  of  division,  growing  out  of  these  proceedings, 
and  do  most  sincerely  and  deA-outly  pray  to  the 
great  Head  of  the  Church,  that  some  effectual 
meansj  not  inconsistent  with  the  cause  of  Christ 
or  the  honor  of  all  concerned,  may  be  suggested 
and  devised,  by  which  so  irreat  a  calamitv  mav  be 
averted,  and  our  long-cherished  union  preserved 
and  perpetuated. 

'•  3.  Resolved,  That  unless  we  can  be  assured 
that  the  rights  of  our  ministry  and  membership 
will  be  effectually  secured,  according  to  Discipline, 
against  future  aggression,  and  full  reparation  be 
made  for  past  injury,  we  shall  deem  the  contem 
plated  division  unavoidable. 

"4.  Resolved,  That  the  manner  in  which  Bishop 
Andrew  sustained  himself  under  his  informal  and 
lawless  prosecution,  characterized  equally  by  Chris- 
tian meekness  and  the  firmness  of  conscious  in^ 
tesrrity.  commands  our  admiration,  and  has  eiven 
him,  if  possible,  even  a  higher  place  than  he  al- 
ready occupied  in  our  esteem  and  afiections. 

"'  5.  Resolved^  That  the  members  of  the  General 
Conference  who  so  firmly  and  perseveringly  re- 
sisted the  unjust  and  extrajudicial  proceedings 
against  Bishop  Andrew  and  the  South,  merit  our 
warmest  thanks. 

'•  6.  Resolved,  That  we  have  the  most  implicit 
confidence  in  the  intelhgence  and  piety  of  the 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  419 

delegates  elected  to  the  Convention  to  be  held  in 
Louisville  in  May  next;  and,  knowing  from  their 
zeal  and  unflinching  ardor  in  the  service  of  God, 
that  they  will  have  nothing  but  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  good  of  the  Church  in  view,  we  most 
cheerfully  commit  our  cause  into  their  hands. 

"  7.  Resolved.  That  in  case  of  division,  we  can- 
not go  with  the  North.  We  believe  they  have  de- 
serted the  'old  landmarks'  of  our  fathers,  disre- 
garded the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  and  tee  can- 
not hesitate  hetiveen  a  separation  from  the  North,  or 
a  separation  from  our  excellent  Book  of  Discipline — 
from  our  ministers,  through  whose  pious  instru- 
mentality we  were  converted  to  God.  and  whose 
interests  are  identified  with  our  own. 

'•  8.  Resolved.  That  we  do  not  separate  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  from  the  juris- 
diction of  the  General  Conference  of  said  Church. 

"9.  Resolved.  That  if  the  Church  diwie,  the 
South  is  not  responsible  for  it ;  but  the  whole 
weight  of  the  responsibility  rests  with  the  Xorth, 
whose  lawless  acts  are  driving  us  from  their 
bosom.'' 

The  Rev.  John  C.  Harrison  was  in  the  chair, 
being  the  Presiding  Elder  on  the  Mays^dlle  Dis- 
trict, in  which  the  Minerva  Circuit  was  embraced. 

From  this  hour  the  war  in  that  circuit  against  the 
action  of  the  Kentucky  Conference  was  carried  on 
by  Dr.  Tomlinson  with  a  zeal  which  had  never 


420  Organization  of  the 

preAdously  distinguished  his  labors  in  the  Church. 
Day  and  night,  through  long  months,  with  unre- 
mitting energy,  he  toiled  to  prevent  the  Minerva 
Circuit,  in  the  bounds  of  which  he  lived,  from  ad- 
hering to  the  fortunes  of  the  South.  His  labors 
were  unavailing,  except  in  the  town  of  Augusta.  All 
the  other  societies  in  the  circuit,  with  the  exception 
of  a  small  minority  at  Mount  Zion,  sustained  the 
action  of  the  Kentucky  Conference,  and  pledged 
themselves  to  adhere  to  the  Southern  division  of 
the  Church.  Baffled  in  their  expectations,  the  abo- 
lition party  sought  revenge  by  securing,  from  a 
packed  Grand  Jury,  an  indictment  against  the 
preacher  in  charge  of  the  circuit,  who  had  thwarted 
their  designs.     The  indictment  reads  : 

"  We,  the  Grand  Jury,  now  in  session  at  Brooks- 
ville,  the  county  seat  of  Bracken  county,  Ken- 
tucky, find  a  true  bill  against  A.  H.  Bedford,  as  a 
disturber  of  the  peace;  and  if  his  principles  were 
carried  out,  would  lead  to  a  dissolution  of  our 
happy  union,  according  to  the  evidence  before 
us."* 

*The  indictment  was  promptly  dismissed  by  the  Hon. 
Judge  Reed,  the  Judge  of  the  Circuit  Court,  and  the  Hon. 
Harrison  Taylor,  the  Common weahh's  Attorney;  the  former 
a  member  of  the  Campbellite  Church,  and  the  latter  not  a 
member  of  any  Church.  A  few  days  later,  nearly  every 
member  of  the  Grand  Jury  asked  the  forgiveness  of  the 
preacher  whom  they  had  wronged. 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  421 

In  no  district  in  Kentucky  was  the  war  waged 
with  so  much  violence  as  in  the  Maysville.  The 
Presiding  Elder  was  in  sympathy  with  the  North- 
ern Church,  but  performed  the  duties  of  his  office 
in  connection  with  this  question  with  equal  justice 
and  impartiality. 

While  the  disturbance  in  this  part  of  Kentucky 
was  more  deeply  felt  in  its  results  than  on  the 
border  elsewhere,  yet  in  other  parts  of  the  State, 
as  also  in  Missouri  and  Virginia,  controversies  oc- 
curred which,  in  some  instances,  rent  societies  in 
twain. 

The  Convention  of  Delegates  from  the  South- 
ern and  South-western  Conferences  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  viz.,  Kentucky,  Missouri, 
Holston,  Tennessee,  North  Carolina,  Memphis, 
Arkansas,  Virginia,  Mississippi,  Texas,  Alabama,' 
Georgia,  South  Carolina,  Florida,  and  Indian  Mis- 
sion— elected  on  the  basis  of  the  Plan  of  Separa- 
tion adopted  by  the  General  Conference,  on  the 
8th  June,  1844 — assembled  in  the  city  of  Louis- 
ville, Kentucky,  on  the  1st  day  of  May,  A.D. 
1845. 

The  meeting  was  called  to  order  at  9  o'clock 
A.M.,  by  Dr.  William  Capers,  and  Dr.  Lovick 
Pierce,  of  Georgia  Conference,  was  elected  Presi- 
dent 'pro  tem.  This  venerable  minister  opened  the 
Convention  by  reading  the  second  chapter  of 
the    Epistle   to   the    Philippians;    by   singing   a 


422  Organization  of  the 

hymn,  containing  an  appropriate  invocation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit — "Come  Holy  Spirit,  heavenly 
Dove" — and  by  offering  a  suitable  and  impressive 
prayer  to  the  throne  of  grace. 

Thomas  N.  Ralston,  of  the  Kentucky  Confer- 
ence, was  then  chosen  Secretary /?ro  tern.  The 
Conferences  represented  in  the  Convention  were 
then  called  over  in  the  order  in  which  they  stand 
in  the  General  Minutes;  and  the  delegates  pre- 
sented their  certificates  of  election — the  Conven- 
tion having  decided  that  those  members  who  are 
not  furnished  with  certificates  of  election  shall, 
nevertheless,  take  their  seats;,  provided  that  the 
presiding  officer  of  their  respective  Conferences, 
or  some  member  present,  attest  their  election. 

The  following  brethren,  having  furnished  the 
necessary  vouchers,  took  their  seats  as  members 
of  the  Convention,  to  wit: 

Kentuclaj  Covference. — H.  B.  Bascom,  Edward 
Stevenson,  Hubbard  H.  Kavanaugh,  Benjamin  T. 
Crouch,  William  Gunn,  George  W.  Taylor,  George 
W.  Brush,  John  C.  Harrison,  Burr  H.  McCown, 
James  King,  John  James,  Thomas  N.  Ralston. 

Missouri. — Andrew  Monroe,  Jesse  Green,  John 
Glanville,  Wesley  Browming,  William  Patton,  John 
H.  Linn,  Joseph  Boyle,  Thomas  Johnson. 

Holston. — Thomas  K.  Catlett,  Thomas  String- 
field,  Rufus  M.  Stevens,  Timothy  Sullins,  Creed 
Fulton. 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  423 

Tennessee.  —  Robert  Paine,  John  B.  McFerrin, 
Alexander  L.  P.  Green,  Fountain  E.  Pitts,  Am- 
brose F.  Driskill,  John  W.  Hanner,  Joshua  Bou- 
cher, Thomas  Madclin,  Frederick  G.  Ferguson, 
Robert  L.  Andrews. 

North  Carolina, — Samuel  S.  Bryant,  Ilezekiah 
G.  Leigh,  Bennet  T.  Blake,  Robert  J.  Carson, 
Peter  Doub,  John  T.  Brame. 

Memphis. — Moses  Brock,  George  W.  D.  Har- 
ris, William  McMahon,  Thomas  Joyner,  Asbury 
Davidson,  Wilson  L.  McAlister,  Thomas  Smith. 

Arkansas. — John  Harrell,  John  F.  Truslow, 
Jacob  Custer. 

Virginia. — John  Early,  Thomas  Crowder,  Wil- 
liam A.  Smith,  Leroy  M.  Lee,  Abraham  Penn, 
David  S.  Doggett,  Henry  B.  Cowles,  Anthony 
Dibrell. 

Mississippi. — William  Winans,  Lewell  Camp- 
bell, John  G.  Jones,  Green  M.  Rogers,  Benjamin 
M.  Drake,  Samuel  W.  Speer,  WiHiam  H.  Wat- 
kins. 

Texas. — Littleton  Fowler,  Francis  Wilson,  R. 
Alexander. 

Alabama.  —  Jefferson  Hamilton,  Jesse  Boring, 
Thomas  H.  Capers,  Eugene  Y.  Levert,  Elisha 
Calloway,  Thomas  0.  Summers,  Greenbury  Gar- 
rett. 

Georgia. — Lovick  Pierce,  George  F.  Pierce, 
James  E.  Evans,  John  W.   Glenn,  Samuel  An- 


424  Organization  of  the 

thony,  Augustus  B.  Longstreet,  Isaac  Boring, 
James  B.  Payne,  Thomas  Samford. 

South  Carolina. — William  Capers,  William  M. 
Wightman,  Hugh  A.  C.  Walker,  Samuel  Dun- 
wody.  Bond  English,  Samuel  W.  Capers,  White- 
foord  Smith,  Robert  J.  Boyd. 

Florida. — Pej^ton  P.  Smith,  Thomas  C.  Ben- 
ning. 

Indian  3Iission. — Edward  T.  Peery,  David  B. 
Cumming. 

On  motion  of  Augustus  B.  Longstreet  and 
William  Capers,  it  was 

Besoked,  That  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  now  in  attendance,  be  requested 
to  preside  over  the  meeting,  under  such  arrange- 
ments as  they  may  make  from  day  to  day  among 
themselves.  This  resolution  was  adopted  unani- 
mously, by  a  standing  vote. 

Bishop  Soule  being  present,  informed  the  Con- 
vention that  he  w^ould  express  his  views  on  the 
subject  of  this  resolution,  both  on  behalf  of  him- 
self and  his  colleague,  Bishop  Andrew  (who  was 
also  present),  on  to-morrow  morning. 

On  motion  of  John  Early,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  all  elections  for  officers  be  by 
ballot,  when  more  than  one  is  nominated;  other- 
wise by  nomination  and  election. 

An  election  of  Secretary  then  took  place,  and 
Thomas  0.  Summers  was,  on  the  first  balloting, 


31.  E,  Church,  South.  425 

duly  elected.     Thomas  N.  Ralston  was,  in  like 
manner,  duly  elected  Assistant  Secretary. 

On  the  second  day  of  the  Convention,  Bishop 
Soule  addressed  the  body  as  follows : 

I  rise  on  the  present  occasion  to  offer  a  few 
remarks  to  this  Convention  of  ministers,  under 
the  influence  of  feelings  more  solemn  and  impres- 
sive than  I  recollect  ever  to  have  experienced 
before.  The  occasion  is  certainly  one  of  no  ordi- 
nary interest  and  solemnity.  I  am  deeply  im- 
pressed with  a  conviction  of  the  important  results 
of  your  deliberations  and  decisions  in  relation  to 
that  numerous  body  of  Christians  and  Christian 
ministers  you  here  represent,  and  to  the  country 
at  large.  And  knowing  as  I  do  the  relative  con- 
dition of  the  vast  community  where  your  acts 
must  be  extensively  felt,  I  cannot  but  feel  a  deep 
interest  in  the  business  of  the  Convention,  both 
as  it  respects  yourselves,  and  the  millions  who 
must  be  affected  by  your  decisions.  With  such 
views  and  feelings,  you  will  indulge  me  in  an 
expression  of  confident  hope  that  all  your  busi- 
ness will  be  conducted  w^ith  the  greatest  delib- 
eration, and  with  that  purity  of  heart  and  mod- 
eration of  temper  suitable  to  yourselves,  as  a 
body  of  Christian  ministers,  and  to  the  impor- 
tant concerns  which  have  called  you  together  ia 
this  city. 


426  Organization  of  the 

The  opinion  which  I  formed  at  the  close  of 
the  late  General  Conference,  that  the  proceedings 
of  that  body  would  result  in  a  division  of  the 
Church,  was  not  induced  by  the  impulse  of  ex- 
citement, but  was  predicated  of  principles  and 
facts  after  the  most  deliberate  and  mature  con- 
sideration. That  opinion  I  have  freely  expressed. 
And  however  deeply  I  have  regretted  such  a  re- 
sult, believing  it  to  be  inevitable,  my  efforts  have 
been  made,  not  to  prevent  it,  but  rather  that  it 
might  be  attended  with  the  least  injury,  and  the 
greatest  amount  of  good  wdiich  the  case  would 
admit.  I  was  not  alone  in  this  opinion.  A  num- 
ber of  aged  and  influential  ministers  entertained 
the  same  views.  And,  indeed,  it  is  not  easy  to 
conceive  hov7  any  one,  intimately  acquainted  with 
the  facts  in  the  case,  and  the  relative  position  of 
the  North  and  South,  could  arrive  at  any  other 
conclusion.  Nothing  has  transpired  since  the 
close  of  the  General  Conference  to  change  the 
opinion  I  then  formed;  but  subsequent  events 
have  rather  confirmed  it.  In  view  of  the  certainty 
of  the  issue,  and  at  the  same  time  ardently  de- 
sirous that  the  two  great  divisions  of  the  Church 
might  be  in  peace  and  harmony  w^ithin  their  own 
respective  bounds,  and  cultivate  the  spirit  of 
Christian  fellowship,  brotherly  kindness,  and  char- 
ity for  each  other,  I  cannot  but  consider  it  an  aus- 
picious  event  that  sixteen  Annual  Conferences, 


M,  E,  Church,  South,  427 

represented  in  this  Convention,  have  acted  with 
such  extraordinary  unanimity  in  the  measures 
they  have  taken  in  the  premises.  In  the  Southern 
Conferences  which  I  have  attended,  I  do  not  recol- 
lect that  there  has  heen  a  dissenting  voice  wdth 
respect  to  the  necessity  of  a  separate  organization; 
and  although  their  official  acts  in  deciding  the  im- 
portant question,  have  been  marked  with  that 
clearness  and  decision  which  should  afford  satis- 
factory evidence  that  they  have  acted  under  a 
solemn  conviction  of  duty  to  Christ,  and  to  the 
people  of  their  charge,  they  have  been  equally 
distinguished  by  moderation  and  candor.  And  as 
far  as  I  have  been  informed,  all  the  other  Confer- 
ences have  pursued  a  similar  course. 

It  is  ardently  to  be  desired  that  the  same  una- 
nimity may  prevail  in  the  counsels  of  this  Con- 
vention as  distinguished,  in  such  a  remarkable 
manner,  the  views,  and  deliberations,  and  decisions 
of  your  constituents.  When  it  is  recollected  that 
it  is  not  only  for  yourselves,  and  the  present  min- 
istry and  membership  of  the  Conferences  you  rep- 
resent, that  you  are  assembled  on  this  occasion, 
but  that  millions  of  the  present  race,  and  genera- 
tions yet  unborn,  may  be  affected,  in  their  most 
essential  interest,  by  the  results  of  your  delibera- 
tions, it  will  occur  to  you  how  important  it  is  that 
you  should  "  do  all  things  as  in  the  immediate  pres- 
ence of  God,"     Let  all  your  acts,  dear  brethren, 


428  Organization  of  the 

be  accompanied  with  much  prayer  for  that  wisdom 
ivliicli  is  from  ahove. 

While  you  are  thus  impressed  with  the  impor- 
tance and  solemnity  of  the  subject  which  has 
occasioned  the  Convention,  and  of  the  high  re- 
sponsibility under  which  you  act,  I  am  confident 
you  will  cultivate  the  spirit  of  Christian  modera- 
tion and  forbearance ;  and  that  in  all  your  acts  you 
will  keep  strictly  within  the  limits  and  provisions 
of  the  "Plan  of  Separation"  adopted  by  the 
General  Conference  with  great  unanimity  and  ap- 
parent Christian  kindness.  I  can  have  no  doubt 
of  the  firm  adherence  of  the  ministers  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  in  the  Conferences  you  repre- 
sent, to  the  doctrines,  rules,  order  of  government, 
and  forms  of  worship,  contained  in  our  excellent 
Book  of  Discipline.  For  myself,  I  stand  upon 
the  basis  of  Methodism  as  contained  in  this  book, 
and  from  it  I  intend  never  to  be  removed.  I  can- 
not be  insensible  to  the  expression  of  your  confi- 
dence in  the  resolution  you  have  unanimously 
adopted,  requesting  me  to  preside  over  the  Conven- 
tion in  conjunction  with  my  colleagues.  And 
after  having  weighed  the  subject  with  careful  de- 
liberation, I  have  resolved  to  accept  your  invita- 
tion, and  discharge  the  duties  of  the  important 
trust  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  My  excellent 
colleague.  Bishop  Andrew,  is  of  the  same  mind,  and 
will  cordially  participate  in  the  duties  of  the  chair. 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  429 

I  am  requested  to  state  to  the  Convention  that 
our  worthy  and  excellent  colleague,  Bishop  Mor- 
ris, believes  it  to  be  his  duty  to  decline  a  partici- 
pation in  the  presidential  duties.  He  assigns  such 
reasons  for  so  doing  as  are,  in  the  judgment  of 
his  colleagues,  perfectly  satisfactory;  and  it  is 
presumed  they  would  be  considered  in  the  same 
light  by  the  Convention.  In  conclusion,  I  trust  that 
all  things  will  be  done  in  that  spirit  which  will  be 
approved  of  God;  and  devoutly  pray  that  your 
acts  may  result  in  the  advancement  of  the  Re- 
deemer's kingdom,  and  the  salvation  of  the  souls 
of  men. 

Bishop  Soule  then  took  the  chair,  which  was 
courteously  vacated  by  Dr.  Pierce. 

On  motion  of  J.  Early  and  W.  A.  Smith,  it  was 

"Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  two  members, 
from  each  Annual  Conference  represented  in  this 
Convention,  be  appointed,  whose  duty  it  shall  be 
to  take  into  consideration  the  propriety  and  ne- 
cessity of  a  Southern  organization,  according  to 
the  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  late 
General  Conference;  together  with  the  acts  of 
the  several  Annual  Conferences  on  this  subject, 
and  report  the  best  method  of  securing  the  ob- 
jects contemplated  in  the  appointment  of  this 
Convention." 

On  motion  of  John  Early  and  Thomas  Crowder, 


430  Organization  of  the 

the  foregoing  committee  was  chosen  by  the  respec- 
tive delegations,  and  are  as  follows: 

Kentucky  Conference. — Henry  B.  Bascom  and 
Edward  Stevenson. 

Missouri. — William  Patton  and  Andrew  Mon- 
roe. 

Holston.  —  Thomas  K.  Catlett  and  Thomas 
Stringfield. 

Tennessee. — Robert  Paine  and  Fountain  E.  Pitts. 

North  Carolina. — Hezekiah  G.  Leigh  and  Peter 
Doub. 

Memphis. — George  W.  D.  Harris  and  Moses 
Brock. 

Arkansas. — John  Harrell  and  John  F.  Truslow. 

Virginia. — John  Early  and  William  A.  Smith. 

Mississippi. — William  Winans  and  Benjamin  M. 
Drake. 

Texas. — Francis  Wilson  and  Littleton  Fowler. 

Alahama. — Jefferson  Hamilton  and  Jesse  Boring. 

Georgia. — Lovick  Pierce  and  Augustus  B.  Long- 
street. 

8outh  Carolina. — William  Capers  and  William 
M.  Wightman. 

Florida. — Thomas  C.  Benning  and  Peyton  P. 
Smith. 

Indian  Mission. — Edward  T.  Peery  and  David 
B.  Gumming. 

Soon  after  the  appointment  of  the  Committee 
on   Organization,  religious   exercises   ensued,   in 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  431 

which  Dr.  Capers,  William  Burke,  Bishop  Morris, 
and  Bishop  Soule,  took  the  lead. 

On  Monday,  the  5th,  on  motion  of  Dr.  William 
Winans,  it  was 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Organization 
be  instructed  to  inquire  whether  or  not  any  thing 
has  transpired,  during  the  past  year,  to  render  it 
possible  to  maintain  the  unity  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  under  the  same  General  Confer- 
ence jurisdiction,  without  the  ruin  of  Southern 
Methodism." 

On  motion  of  Benjamin  M.  Drake,  it  was 

'^Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Organization 
be,  and  are  hereby,  instructed  to  inquire  into  the 
propriety  of  reporting  resolutions  in  case  a  division 
should  take  place,  leaving  the  way  open  for  re- 
union on  terms  which  shall  not  compromise  the 
interest  of  the  JSoiithern,  and  which  shall  meet,  as 
far  as  may  be,  the  views  of  the  Northern  portion 
of  the  Church." 

Dr.  William  A.  Smith  and  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce 
presented  the  following  resolution,  which  at  their 
request  was  laid  on  the  table  to  be  taken  up  to- 
morrow morning: 

"Resolved,  By  the  delegates  of  the  several  An- 
nual Conferences  in  the  Southern  and  South-west- 
ern States,  in  General  Convention  assembled,  That 
we  cannot  sanction  the  action  of  the  late  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  on 


432  Organization  of  the 

the  subject  of  sliiA^ery,  by  remaining  under  the 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  that  body,  without 
deep  and  lasting  injury  to  the  interests  of  the 
Church  and  the  country;  we,  therefore,  hereby 
instruct  the  Committee  on  Organization,  that  if 
upon  a  careful  examination  of  the  whole  subject, 
they  find  that  there  is  no  reasonable  ground  to 
hope  that  the  Northern  majority  will  recede  from 
their  position  and  give  some  safe  guaranty  for  the 
future  security  of  our  civil  and  ecclesiastical  rights, 
that  they  report  in  favor  of  a  separation  from  the 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  said  General  Con- 
ference." 

The  resolution  offered  by  Drs.  Smith  and  Pierce 
was  supported  by  speeches  from  Dr.  Smith,  Dr. 
Pierce,  Dr.  Capers,  Lewell  Campbell,  Dr.  Long- 
street,  Samuel  Dunwody,  Dr.  Paine,  G.  F.  Pierce, 
and  Thomas  Crowder. 

On  Tuesday,  the  13th  of  May,  the  following 
resolution  was  offered  by  James  E.  Evans,  of 
Georgia : 

'^Resolved J  That  in  the  judgment  of  the  Conven- 
tion, it  is  not  necessary  that  the  general  causes 
and  necessities  for  a  separate  organization  should 
be  discussed  any  longer — unless  some  members 
from  the  border  Conferences  should  think  it  neces- 
sary to  do  so,  in  order  to  represent  their  portion 
of  the  Church  correctly." 

On   this   resolution   speeches   were   made    by 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  433 

George  W.  Brush,  H.  H.  Kavanaugh,  Thomas 
Stringfield,  William  Patton,  Andrew  Monroe, 
and  William  Gunn. 

On  the  14th,  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Evans  was 
taken  up,  and  si3eeches  were  made  by  Fountain  E.. 
Pitts,  of  the  Tennessee  Conference,  Moses  Brock, 
William  McMahon,  and  George  W.  D.  Harris,  of 
the  Memphis,  William  Gunn  and  Benjamin  T. 
Crouch,  of  the  Kentucky,  Dr.  Smith,  of  the  Vir- 
ginia, and  Thomas  K.  Catlett,  of  the  Holston. 

The  resolution  of  James  E.  •Evans  was  then 
withdrawn,  and  the  one  offered  by  William  A. 
Smith  w^as  again  taken  up,  and  supported  in  a  few 
remarks  by  Joseph  Bo^de  and  Jesse  Green,  of  Mis- 
souri, and  Littleton  Fowler,  of  Texas.  The  reso- 
lution was  then  adopted,  w4th  one  dissenting  vote. 

On  the  15th  of  May,  it  was  announced  that  the 
Committee  on  Organization  were  prepared  to  make 
their  report.  They  submitted  the  following,  which 
w^as  read  by  Bev.  Henry  B.  Bascom,  D.D.,  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee : 

The  committee  appointed  to  inquire  into  the 
propriety  and  necessity  of  a  separate  organization 
of  the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  in  the  slaveholding  States,  for  the 
purpose  of  a  separate  General  Conference  connec- 
tion and  jurisdiction,  within  the  limits  of  said  States 
and  Conferences,  having  had  the  entire  subject 
19 


434  Organization  of  the 

under  careful  and  patient  consideration,  together 
"with  the  numerous  petitions,  instructions,  resolu- 
tions, and  propositions  for  adjustment  and  compro- 
mise, referred  to  them  by  the  Convention,  offer  the 
following  as  their 

report: 

In  view  of  the  extent  to  which  the  great  ques- 
tions in  controversy,  between  the  North  and  the 
South  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have 
been  discussed,  and  by  consequence  must  be  un- 
derstood by  the  parties  more  immediately  inter- 
ested, it  has  not  been  deemed  necessary  by  the 
committee  to  enter  into  any  formal  or  elaborate 
examination  of  the  general  subject,  beyond  a  plain 
and  comprehensive  statement  of  the  facts  and 
principles  involved,  which  may  place  it  in  the 
power  of  all  concerned  to  do  justice  to  the  con- 
victions and  motives  of  the  Southern  Church,  in 
resisting  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference 
on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  its  unconstitutional 
assumption  of  right  and  powder  in  other  respects ; 
and  also  presenting,  in  a  form  as  brief  and  lucid 
as  possible,  some  of  the  principal  grounds  of  action, 
had  in  view  by  the  South,  in  favoring  the  provis- 
ional Plan  of  Separation,  adopted  by  the  General 
Conference  at  its  last  session. 

On  the  subject  of  the  legitimate  right,  and  the 
full  and  proper  authority,  of  the  Convention  to  in- 
stitute,  determine,  and  finally  act  upon  the  in- 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  435 

quiiy  referred  to  the  committee  to  deliberate  and 
report  upon,  the  committee  entertain  no  doubt 
whatever.  Apart  from  every  other  consideration 
which  might  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  question, 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,  in  the  Plan  of 
Jurisdictional  Separation  adopted  by  that  body, 
gave  full  and  express  authority  to  "the  Annual 
Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,"  to  judge 
of  the  propriety,  and  decide  upon  the  necessity, 
of  organizing  a  "separate  ecclesiastical  connec- 
tion "  in  the  South.  And  not  only  did  the  General 
Conference  invest  this  right  in  "  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences in  the  slaveholding  States,"  without  lim- 
itation or  reserve,  as  to  the  extent  of  the  invest- 
ment, and  exclusively  wdth  regard  to  every  other 
division  of  the  Church,  and  all  other  branches  or 
powers  of  the  government,  but  left  the  method  of 
official  determination  and  the  mode  of  action,  in 
the  exercise  or  assertion  of  the  right,  to  the  free 
and  untrammeled  discretion  of  the  Conferences 
interested.  These  Conferences,  thus  accredited 
by  the  General  Conference  to  judge  and  act  for 
themselves,  confided  the  right  and  trust  of  decision 
and  action  in  the  premises  to  delegates  regularly 
chosen  by  these  bodies  respectively,  upon  a  uni- 
form principle  and  fixed  ratio  of  representation, 
previously  agreed  upon  by  each,  in  constitutional 
session,  and  directed  them  to  meet  in  general  con- 
vention, in  the  city  of  Louisville,  May,  1845,  for 


436  Organization  of  the 

this  and  other  purposes,  authorized  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same 
way.     All  the  right  and  power,  therefore,  of  the 
General  Conference,  in  any  way  connected  wdth 
the  important  decision  in  question,  were  duly  and 
formally  transferred  to  "  the  Annual  Conferences 
in  the  slaveholding   States,"  and   exclusively  in- 
vested in  them.     And  as  this  investment  was  ob- 
viously for  the  purpose  that  such  right  and  power 
might  be  exercised  by  them,  in  any  mode  they 
might  prefer,  not  inconsistent  wdth  the  terms  and 
conditions  of  the  investment,  the  delegates  thus 
chosen,  one  hundred  in  number,  and  representing 
sixteen  Annual  Conferences,  under  commission  of 
the  General  Conference,  here  and  now  assembled 
in  Convention,  have  not  only  all  the  right  and 
power  of  the  General  Conference,  as  transferred 
to  "  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding 
States,"  but  in  addition,  all  the  right  and  power 
of  necessity  inherent  in  these  bodies,  as  constitu- 
ent parties,  giving  birth  and  power  to  the  General 
Conference  itself,  as  the  common  federal  council 
of  the  Church.     It  follows  hence,  that  for  all  the 
purposes  specified  and  understood  in  this  prelimi- 
nary view  of  the  subject,  the  Convention  possesses 
all  the  right  and  power  both  of  the  General  Con- 
ference and  the  sixteen  "Annual  Conferences  in 
the   slaveholding    States,"  jointly  and  severally 
considered.      The  ecclesiastical  and  conventional 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  437 

right,  therefore,  of  this  body  to  act  in  the  prem- 
ises, and  act  conclusively,  irrespective  of  the  whole 
Church — and  all  its  powers  of  government  beside- 
— is  clear  and  undoubted.  As  the  moral  right, 
however,  to  act  as  proposed  in  the  General  Con- 
ference Plan  of  Jurisdictional  Separation,  rests 
upon  entirely  different  grounds,  and  will,  perhaps, 
be  considered  as  furnishing  the  only  allowable 
warrant  of  action,  notwithstanding  constitutional 
right,  it  may  be  necessary  at  least  to  glance  at 
the  grave  moral  reasons  creating  the  necessity, 
the  high  moral  compulsions  by  which  the  South- 
ern Conferences  and  Church  have  been  impelled 
to  the  course  of  action,  which  it  is  the  intention 
of  this  Report  to  explain  and  vindicate,  as  not 
only  right  and  reasonable,  but  indispensable  to 
the  character  and  welfare  of  Southern  Methodism- 
The  preceding  statements  and  reasoning  present 
no  new  principle  or  form  of  action  in  the  history 
of  the  Church.  Numerous  instances  might  be 
cited,  in  the  constitutional  history  of  Church- 
polity,  in  which  high  moral  necessity,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  recognized  conventional  right,  has 
furnished  the  only  and  yet  sufficient  warrant  for 
ecclesiastical  movements  and  arrangements,  pre- 
cisely similar  in  character  w^ith  that  contemplated 
in  the  plan  of  a  separate  Southern  Connection  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  adopted  by  the 
late  General  Conference.     Wesleyan  Methodism, 


438  Organization  of  the 

in  all  its  phases  and  aspects,  is  a  most  pertinent 
illustration  of  the  truth  we  assume,  and  the  fitness 
and  force  of  the  example  must  go  far  to  preclude 
the  necessity  of  any  other  proof.  It  was  on  the 
specific  basis  of  such  necessity,  without  conven- 
tional right,  that  the  great  Wesleyan  Connection 
arose  in  England.  It  was  upon  the  same  basis, 
as  avowed  by  Wesley,  that  the  American  Connec- 
tion became  separate  and  independent;  and  this 
Connection  again  avows  the  same  principle  of 
action,  in  the  separation  and  establishment  of  a 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Canada,  whose  or- 
ganization took  place  by  permission  and  direction 
of  the  same  authority  under  which  this  Conven- 
tion is  now  acting  for  a  similar  purpose. 

Should  it  appear,  in  the  premises  of  the  action 
proposed,  that  a  high  moral  and  religious  duty  is 
devolved  upon  the  ministry  and  membership  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  South — 
devolved  upon  us  by  the  great  Head  of  the  Church, 
and  the  providential  appointments  of  our  social 
condition,  which  we  cannot  neglect  without  infi- 
delity to  a  high  moral  trust,  but  which  we  cannot 
fulfill  in  connectional  union  with  the  Northern  por- 
tion of  the  Church,  under  the  same  General  Con- 
ference jurisdiction,  owing  to  causes  connected 
with  the  civil  institutions  of  the  country,  and  be- 
yond the  control  of  the  Church,  then  a  strong 
moral  necessity  is  laid  upon  us,  which  assumes 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  439 

the  commanding  character  of  a  positive  duty, 
under  sanction  of  divine  right,  to  dissolve  the 
ties  and  bonds  of  a  single  General  Conference 
jurisdiction,  and  in  its  place  substitute  one  in  the 
South,  which  will  not  obstruct  us  in  the  perform- 
ance of  duty,  or  prevent  us  from  accomplishing 
the  great  objects  of  the  Christian  ministry  and 
Church-organization.  From  a  careful  survey  of 
the  entire  field  of  facts  and  their  relations — the 
whole  range  of  cause  and  effect,  as  connected  with 
the  subject-matter  of  this  Keport — it  is  confidently 
'  believed  that  the  great  warrant  of  moral  necessity, 
not  less  than  unquestionable  ecclesiastical  right, 
fully  justifies  this  Convention  in  the  position  they 
are  about  to  take,  as  a  separate  organic  division 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  by  authority 
of  its  chief  synod,  "  the  delegates  of  all  the  sev- 
eral Annual  Conferences  in  General  Conference 
assembled."  One  of  the  two  main  issues,  which 
have  decided  the  action  of  the  Southern  Confer- 
ences, relates,  as  all  know,  to  the  assumed  right 
of  the  Church  to  control  the  question  of  slavery, 
by  means  of  the  ordinary  and  fluctuating  provis- 
ions of  Church-legislation,  without  reference  to  the 
superior  control  of  State  policy  and  civil  law. 
From  all  the  evidence  accessible  in  the  case,  the 
great  masses  of  the  ministry  and  membership  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  North  and  South, 
present  an  irreconcilable  opposition  of  conviction 


440  Organization  of  the 

and  feeling  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  so  far  as  re- 
lates to  the  rights  of  the  Church  to  interfere  with 
the  question — the  one  claiming  unlimited  right  of 
interference  to  the  full  extent  the  Church  may,  at 
any  time,  or  from  any  cause,  be  concerned,  and  the 
other  resisting  alike  the  assumption  or  exercise  of 
any  such  right,  because,  in  nearly  all  the  slaA^e- 
holding  States,  such  a  course  of  action  must  bring 
the  Church  in  direct  conflict  with  the  civil  author- 
ity, to  which  the  Church  has  pledged  subjection 
and  support  in  the  most  solemn  and  explicit  forms, 
and  from  the  obligations  of  which  she  cannot  re- 
treat without  dishonoring  her  own  laws,  and  the 
neglect  and  violation  of  some  of  the  plain  and 
most  imperative  requirements  of  Christianity. 
Under  such  circumstances  of  disagreement — in 
such  a  state  of  adverse  conviction  and  feeling  on 
the  part  of  the  North  and  South  of  the  Church — 
it  is  believed  that  the  tw^o  great  sections  of  the 
Church,  thus  situated  in  relation  to  each  other 
by  causes  beyond  the  control  of  either  party,  can- 
not remain  together  and  successfully  prosecute 
the  high  and  common  aims  of  the  Christian  minis- 
try and  Church-organization  under  the  same  Gen- 
eral Conference  jurisdiction.  The  manifest  w^ant 
of  uniformity  of  opinion  and  harmony  of  coopera- 
tion must  always  lead,  as  heretofore,  to  struggles 
and  results  directly  inconsistent  with  the  original 
intention  of  the  Church,  in  establishing  a  common 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  441 

jurisdiction,  to  control  all  its  general  interests. 
And  should  it  appear  that,  by  a  division  and  fu- 
ture duality  of  such  jurisdiction  as  authorized  by 
the  late  General  Conference,  the  original  purposes 
of  the  Church  can  better  be  accomplished,  or 
rather,  that  they  can  be  accomplished  in  no  other 
Avay,  how  can  the  true  and  proper  unity  of  the 
Church  be  maintained  except  by  yielding  to  the 
necessity,  and  having  a  separate  General  Confer- 
ence jurisdiction  for  each  division  ?  By  the  South- 
ern portion  of  the  Church  generally,  slavery  is  re- 
garded as  strictly  a  civil  institution,  exclusively  in 
custody  of  the  civil  power,  and  as  a  regulation  of 
State  beyond  the  reach  of  Church-interference  or 
control,  except  as  civil  law  and  right  may  be 
infringed  by  ecclesiastical  assumption.  By  the 
Northern  portion  of  the  Church,  individuals  are 
held  responsible  for  the  alleged  wjustice  and  evil 
of  relations  and  rights,  created  and  protected  by 
the  organic  and  municipal  laws  of  the  Government 
and  country,  and  which  relations  and  rights,  in 
more  than  two-thirds  of  the  slaveholding  States, 
are  not  under  individual  control  in  any  sense  or  to 
any  extent. 

Both  portions  of  the  Church  are  presumed  to 
act  from  principle  and  conviction,  and  cannot, 
therefore,  recede;  and  hozv,  under  such  circum- 
stances, is  it  possible  to  prevent  the  most  fearful 
disunion,  with  all  the  attendant  evils  of  contention 
19* 


442  Organkation  of  the 

and  strife,  except  by  allowing  each  section  a  sep- 
arate and  independent  jurisdiction,  the  same  in 
character  and  purpose  with  the  one  to  which  both 
have  hitherto  been  subject  ?  What  fact,  truth,  or 
principle,  not  merely  of  human  origin,  and  there- 
fore of  doubtful  authority,  can  be  urged  as  inter- 
posing any  reasonable  obstacle  to  a  change  of  ju- 
risdiction, merely  modal  in  character,  and  simply 
designed  to  adapt  a  single  principle  of  Church-gov- 
erninent,  not  pretended  to  be  of  divine  obligation 
or  Scripture  origin,  to  the  character  and  features 
of  the  civil  government  of  the  country?  Nothing 
essential  to  Church-organization — nothing  essen- 
tially distinctive  of  Methodism — even  American 
Methodism,  is  proposed  to  be  disturbed,  or  even 
touched,  by  the  arrangement.  It  is  a  simple  di- 
vision of  general  jurisdiction,  for  strong  moral  rea- 
sons, arising  out  of  the  civil  relations  and  posi- 
tion of  the  parties,  intended  to  accomplish  for 
both  what  it  is  demonstrated  by  experiment  can- 
not be  accomplished  by  one  common  jurisdiction, 
as  now  constituted,  and  should  therefore,  under 
the  stress  of  such  moral  necessity,  be  attempted 
in  some  other  way. 

The  question  of  slavery,  more  or  less  intimately 
interwoven  with  the  interests  and  destiny  of  .nine 
millions  of  human  beings  in  the  United  States,  is 
certainly  of  sufficient  importance,  coming  up  as  it 
has  in  the  recent  history  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  443 

copal  Church,  and  as  it  does  in  the  deliberations 
of  this  Convention,  to  authorize  any  merely  modal 
or  even  organic  changes  in  the  government  of  the 
Church,  should  it  appear  obvious  that  the  original 
and  avowed  purposes  of  the  Church  will  be  more 
effectively  secured  and  promoted  by  the  change 
proposed,  than  by  continuing  the  present  or  former 
system.  The  evidence  before  the  committee  es- 
tablishes the  fact  in  the  clearest  manner  possible, 
that  throughout  the  Southern  Conferences,  the  min- 
istry and  membership  of  the  Church,  amounting  to 
nearly  500,000,  in  the  proportion  of  about  ninety- 
five  in  the  hundred,  deem  a  division  of  jurisdiction 
indispensable  to  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  in  the 
Southern  and  South-western  Conferences  of  the 
slaveholding  States ;  and  this  fact  alone  must  go 
far  to  establish  the  right,  while  it  demonstrates  the 
necessity,  of  the  separate  jurisdiction  contemplated 
in  the  plan  of  the  General  Conference,  and  adopted 
by  that  body  in  view  of  such  necessity  as  likely 
to  exist.  The  interests  of  State,  civil  law,  and 
public  opinion,  in  the  South,  imperiously  require 
that  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Church  shall  have 
no  part  in  the  discussion  and  agitation  of  this  sub- 
ject in  the  chief  councils  of  the  Church.  In  this 
opinion,  nearly  universal  in  the  South,  we  concur. 
i  Christ  and  his  apostles — Christianity  and  its  in- 
spired and  early  teachers — found  slavery  in  its  most 
offensive  and  aggravated  forms,  as  a  civil  institu- 


444  Organization  of  the 

tion,  diffused  and  existing  throughout  nearly  the 
entire  field  of  their  ministrations  and  influence ; 
and  yet,  in  the  New  Testament^  and  earlier  records 
of  the  Church,  we  have  no  legislation — no  inter- 
ference— no  denunciation  with  regard  to  it — not 
even  remonstrance  against  it.  They  found  it 
wrought  up  and  vitally  intermingled  with  the 
whole  machinery  of  civil  government  and  order  of' 
society — so  implicated  with  "  the  powers  that  be," 
that  infinite  wisdom,  and  the  early  pastoral  guides 
of  the  Church,  saw  just  reason  w^hy  the  Church 
should  not  interfere  beyond  a  plain  and  urgent 
enforcement  of  the  various  duties  growing  out  of 
the  peculiar  relation  of  master  and  slave,  leaving 
the  relation  itself,  as  a  civil  arrangement,  untouched 
and  unaffected,  except  so  far  as  it  seems  obviously 
to  have  been  the  divine  purpose  to  remove  every 
form  and  degree  of  wrong  and  evil  connected  v/ith 
the  institutions  of  human  government,  by  a  faith- 
ful inculcation  of  the  doctrines  and  duties  of 
Christianity,  without  meddling  in  any  way  with 
the  civil  polity  of  the  countries  into  which  it  was 
introduced.  A  course  precisely  similar  to  this, 
the  example  of  which  should  have  been  more  at- 
tractive, was  pursued  by  the  great  founder  of 
Methodism,  in  all  slaveholding  countries  in  which 
he  established  societies.  Mr.  Wesley  never  deemed 
it  proper  to  have  any  rule,  law,  or  regulation  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  either  in  the  United  States, 


M,  E.  Church,  South,  445 

the  West  Indies,  or  elsewhere.  The  effects  of  the 
early  and  unfortunate  attempts  of  the  Methodist 
Church  to  meddle  and  interfere,  in  the  legislation 
and  practice  of  government  and  discipline,  with 
the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  United  States, 
are  too  well  known  to  require  comment.  Among 
the  more  immediate  results  of  this  short-sighted, 
disastrous  imprudence,  especially  from  1780  to 
1804,  may  be  mentioned  the  watchful  jealousy  of 
civil  government,  and  the  loss  of  public  confidence 
throughout  a  very  large  and  influential  portion  of 
the  whole  Southern  community.  These,  and  simi- 
lar developments,  led  the  Church,  by  the  most 
careful  and  considerate  steps,  to  the  adoption, 
gradually,  of  a  medium  compromise  course  of 
legislation  on  the  subject,  until  the  law  of  slavery, 
as  it  now  exists  in  the  letter  of  Discipline,  became, 
by  the  last  material  act  of  legislation  in  1816,  the 
great  compromise  bond  of  union  between  the  North 
and  the  South  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  The 
whole  law  of  the  Church,  all  there  is  in  the  stat- 
ute-book to  govern  North  and  South  on  this  sub- 
ject, is  the  following:  First.  The  general  rule, 
which  simply  prohibits  "  the  buying  and  selling  of 
men,  women,  or  children,  with  an  intention,  to  en- 
slave them,"  Second.  "No  slaveholder  shall  be 
eligible  to  any  official  station  in  our  Church  here- 
after, where  the  laws  of  the  State  in  w^hich  he 
lives  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the  liber- 


446  Organization  of  the 

ated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom.  When  any  traveling 
preacher  becomes  an  owner  of  a  slave,  or  slaves, 
by  any  means,  he  shall  forfeit  his  ministerial  char- 
acter in  our  Church,  unless  he  execute,  if  it  be 
practicable,  a  legal  emancipation  of  such  slaves, 
conformably  to  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he 
lives." 

Here  is  the  law,  the  tvliole,  the  onli/,  law  of  the 
Church,  containing  first,  a  prohibition,  and  second, 
a  grant.  The  prohibition  is,  that  no  member  or 
minister  of  the  Church  is  allowed  to  purchase  or 
sell  a  human  beins:,  who  is  to  be  enslaved,  or  re- 
ducecl  to  a  state  of  slavery,  by  such  purchase  or 
sale.  And  farther,  that  no  minister,  in  any  of  the 
grades  of  ministerial  office,  or  other  person,  having 
official  standing  in  the  Church,  can,  if  he  be  the 
owner  of  a  slave,  be  allowed  to  sustain  such  offi- 
cial relation  to  the  Church,  unless  he  shall  legally 
provide  for  the  emancipation  of  such  slave  or 
slaves,  if  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives 
will  admit  of  legal  emancipation,  and  permit  the 
liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom.  Such  is  the 
plain  frohihition  of  law,  binding  upon  all.  The 
grant  of  the  law,  however,  is  equally  plain  and 
unquestionable.  It  is,  that  persons  may  purchase 
or  sell  men,  w^omen,  or  children,  provided  such 
purchase  or  sale  does  not  involve  the  fact  or  in- 
tention of  enslaving  them,  or  of  reducing  the  siil- 
jects  of  such  purchase  or  sale  to  a  state  of  slavery. 


3L  E.  Church,  South,  447 

The  intention  of  the  law  no  doubt  is,  that  this 
may  be  done  from  motives  of  humanity,  and  not 
by  any  means  for  the  purpose  of  gain.  But,  far- 
ther, the  law  distinctly  provides,  that  every  min- 
ister, in  tvhatever  grade  of  office^  and  every  person 
having  official  standing  of  any  Jdnd,  in  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  being  the  owner  or  owners 
of  slave  property,  shall  be  protected  against  any 
forfeiture  of  right,  on  this  account,  where  the 
laws  of  the  State  do  not  admit  of  legal  emancipa- 
tion, and  allow  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  free- 
dom in  the  State  in  which  he  is  emancipated. 
Here  is  the  plain  grant  of  laiu  to  which  we  allude. 
From  the  first  agitation  of  the  subject  of  slavery 
in  the  Church,  the  Northern  portion  of  it  has  been 
disposed  to  insist  upon  farther  'prohihitorii  enact- 
ments. The  South,  meanwhile,  has  always  shown 
itself  ready  to  go  as  far,  by  way  of  prohibition, 
as  the  law  in  question  implies,  but  has  uniformly 
resisted  any  attempt  to  impair  Southern  rights 
under  protection  of  the  grant  of  law  to  which  we 
have  asked  attention.  Under  such  circumstances 
of  disagreement  and  difficulty,  the  conventional 
and  legislative  adjustment  of  the  question,  as 
found  in  the  General  Rule,  but  especially  the  tenth 
section  of  the  Discipline,  was  brought  about,  and 
has  always  been  regarded  in  the  South  as  a  great 
compromise  arrangement,  without  strict  adherence 
to  which  the  North  and  the  South  could  not  re* 


448  Organization  of  the 

main  together  under  the  same  general  jurisdiction. 
That  we  have  not  mistaken  the  character  of  the 
law,  or  misconstrued  the  intention  and  purposes 
of  its  enactment,  at  different  times,  we  think  en- 
tirely demonstrable  from  the  whole  history,  both 
of  the  legislation  of  the  Church  and  the  judicial 
and  executive  administration  of  the  Government. 
The  full  force  and  bearing  of  the  law,  however, 
were  more  distinctly  brought  to  vicAV,  and  author- 
itatively asserted,  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1840,  after  the  most  careful  examination  of  the 
whole  subject,  and  the  judicial  determination  of 
that  body,  connected  with  the  language  of  the 
Discipline  just  quoted,  gives  in  still  clearer  light 
the  true  and  only  law  of  the  Church  on  the  subject 
of  slavery.  After  deciding  various  other  princi- 
ples and  positions  incidental  to  the  main  question, 
the  decision  is  summed  up  in  the  following  w^ords : 

"  While  the  generial  rule  (or  law)  on  the  subject 
of  slavery,  relating  to  those  States  whose  laws 
admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the  liberated 
slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  should  be  firmly  and  con- 
stantly enforced,  the  exception  to  the  general  rule 
(or  law)  applying  to  those  States  where  emanci- 
pation, as  defined  above,  is  not  praeticaUe,  should 
be  recognized  and  protected  with  equal  firmness 
and  impartiality;  therefore, 

"Resolved^  hj  the  several  Annual  Conferences  in 
General  Conference  assembled,  That  under  the  pro- 


31.  E.   CJiurch,  South  449 

visional  exception  of  the  general  rule  (or  law)  of 
the  Church,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  simple 
holding  of  slaves,  or  mere  ownership  of  slave  prop- 
erty, in  States  or  Territories  where  the  laws  do 
not  admit  of  emancipation  and  permit  the  liber- 
ated slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  constitutes  no  legal 
harrier  to  the  election  or  ordination  of  ministers 
to  the  various  grades  of  office  known  in  the  min- 
istry of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  can- 
not, therefore,  be  considered  as  operating  any  for- 
feiture of  right,  in  view^  of  such  election  and  ordi- 
nation." 

This  decision  of  the  General  Conference  was  not 
objected  to  or  dissented  from  by  a  single  member 
of  that  body.  It  w^as  the  unanimous  voice  of  the 
great  representative  and  judical  council  of  the 
Church  then  acting  in  the  character  of  a  high 
court  of  appeals  for  the  decision  of  an  important 
legal  question.  It  will  be  perceived  how  strik- 
ingly the  language  of  this  decision  accords  Avith 
loth  the  features  of  the  law  of  slavery  which  w^e 
have  thought  it  important  to  notice,  the  prohibition 
and  the  grant  of  law  in  the  case ;  what  may  not 
be  done  as  the  general  rule,  and  at  the  same  time 
what  ma?/  he  done,  under  the  provisional  exception 
to  the  general  law,  without  forfeiture  of  right  of 
any  kind.  It  is  also  worthy  of  particular  notice, 
that  beside  the  plain  assurance  of  the  original  law, 
that  where  emancipation  is  not  legally  practicable, 


450  Organization  of  the 

and  the  emancipated  slave  allowed  to  enjoy  free- 
dom, or  where  it  is  practicable  to  emancipate,  but 
the  emancipated  slave  cannot  enjoy  freedom,  eman- 
cipation is  not  required  of  any  owner  of  slaves  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  from  the  lowest 
officer  up  to  the  Bishop,  but  the  rights  of  all  thus 
circumstanced  are  protected  and  secured,  notv»^ith- 
standing  their  connection  w^ith  slavery.  Besides 
this,  the  full  and  elaborate  decision  of  the  General 
Conference  as  a  grave  and  formal  adjudication  had 
upon  all  the  issues  involved  in  the  question,  pub- 
lished to  all  w^ho  were  in,  or  might  be  disposed  to 
enter,  the  Church,  that  the  law  of  slavery  applied 
to  States  wdiere  emancipation  is  impracticable,  and 
the  freed  slave  not  allowed  to  enjoy  freedom,  this 
clear  and  unambiguous  decision,  by  the  highest 
authority  of  the  Church,  leaves  the  OAvner  of  slaves 
upon  the  ground — upon  a  basis  of  the  most  per- 
fect equality  with  other  ministers  of  the  Church, 
having  no  connection  with  slavery.  Such,  then, 
is  the  law;  such  its  construction;  such  the  official 
and  solemn  pledge  of  the  Church.  And  these 
had,  to  a  great  extent,  restored  the  lost  confidence 
and  allayed  the  jealous  apprehensions  of  the  South, 
in  relation  to  the  purposes  of  the  Church  respect- 
ing shivery.  There  w^as  in  the  South  no  dispo- 
sition to  disturb,  discuss,  or  in  any  w^ay  agitate 
the  subject.  The  law  was  not  objected  to  or  com- 
plained of,  but  w^as  regarded  as  a  settled  compro- 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  451 

mise  between  the  parties,  a  medium  arrangement 
on  the  ground  of  mutual  concession,  well  calcu- 
lated to  secure  and  promote  the  best  interests  of 
the  Church,  North  and  South. 

That  this  law,  this  great  compromise  conserva- 
tive arrangement,  which  had  been  looked  to  as  the 
only  reliable  bond  of  jurisdictional  union  between 
the  North  and  South  for  nearly  half  a  century, 
w^as  practically  disregarded  and  abandoned  by  the 
last  General  Conference,  in  the  memorable  cases 
of  Harding  and  Andrew,  both  by  judicial  construc- 
tion and  virtual  legislation,  manifestly  inconsistent 
with  its  provisions  and  purposes,  and  subversive 
of  the  great  objects  of  its  enactment,  has  been 
too  fearfully  demonstrated  by  various  forms  of 
proof,  to  require  more  than  a  brief  notice  in  this 
Report.  The  actual  position  of  the  Church  w\as 
suddenly  reversed,  and  its  long-established  policy 
entirely  changed.  The  w^hole  law  of  the  Church, 
and  the  most  important  adjudications  had  upon  it, 
were  treated  as  null  and  obsolete,  and  that  body 
proceeded  to  a  claim  of  right  and  course  of  action 
amounting  to  a  virtual  repeal  of  all  law^,  and  new 
and  capricious  legislation  on  the  most  difficult  and 
delicate  question  ever  introduced  into  the  coun- 
cils of  the  Church  or  named  upon  its  statute-book. 

By  no  fair  construction  of  the  law  of  slavery, 
as  given  above,  could  the  Church  be  brought  in 
conflict  with  civil  legislation  on  the  subject.     It 


452  Organization  of  the 

is  true,  as  demanded  by  the  convictions  and  opin- 
ions of  the  Church,  testimony  was  borne  against 
the  evil  of  slavery,  but  it  was  done  without  con- 
flicting with  the  polity  and  laws  of  any  portion  of 
the  country.  No  law,  for  example,  affected  the 
lay -membership  of  the  Church  with  regard  to 
slaveholding ;  the  Church  gave  its  full  permission 
that  the  private  members  of  the  Church  might 
own  and  hold  slaves  at  discretion ;  and  the  infer- 
ence is  indubitable,  that  the  Church  did  not  con- 
sider simple  slaveholding  as  a  moral  evil,  person- 
ally attaching  to  the  mere  fact  of  being  the  owner 
or  holder  of  slaves.  The  evil  charged  upon  slav- 
ery must  of  necessity  have  been  understood  of 
other  aspects  of  the  subject,  and  could  not  imply 
moral  obliquity,  without  impeaching  the  integrity 
and  virtue  of  the  Church.  Moreover,  where  the 
laws  precluded  emancipation,  the  ministry  were 
subjected  to  no  disabilities  of  any  kind,  and  the 
requirements  of  the  Church,  in  relation  to  slavery, 
were  not  at  least  in  any  thing  like  direct  conflict 
with  civil  law.  In  contravention,  however,  of  the 
plain  and  long-established  law  of  the  Church,  the 
action  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  in  the 
well-known  instances  cited,  brought  the  Church 
into  a  state  of  direct  and  violent  antagonism  with 
the  civil  authority  and  the  rights  of  citizenship, 
throughout  all  the  slaveholding  States.  This  was 
not  done  by  the  repeal  of  existing  law,  or  addi- 


31.  E,  Church,  South.  453 

tional  leGrislation  bv  direct  enactment,  but  in  a 
much  more  dangerous  form,  by  the  simple  process 
of  resohition  by  an  irresponsible  majority,  requir-^ 
ing  Southern  ministers,  as  slaveholders,  in  order 
to  Church  eligibility  and  equality  of  right  with 
non-slaveholding  ministers  of  the  Church,  to  do 
what  cannot  be  done  without  a  violation  of  the 
laws  of  the  States  in  which  they  reside,  and  is 
not  required  or  contemplated,  but  expressly  ex- 
cepted, and  even  provided  against,  by  the  law  of 
the  Church. 

It  will  thus  appear  that  the  entire  action  of  the 
General  Conference  on  the  subject  of  slavery  was 
in  direct  conflict  with  the  law,  both  of  the  Church 
and  the  land,  and  could  not  have  been  submitted 
to  by  the  South  without  the  most  serious  detri- 
ment to  the  interests  of  the  Church.  The  action 
in  the  instance  of  Bishop  Andrew  was,  in  the 
strongest  and  most  exceptional  sense,  extrajudi- 
cial. It  was  not  pretended  that  Bishop  Andrew 
had  violated  any  law  of  the  Church ;  so  far  from 
this,  the  only  law  applicable  to  the  case,  gave,  as 
w^e  have  seen,  ample  and  explicit  assurance  of  pro- 
tection. So  to  construe  law,  or  so  proceed  to  act 
without  reference  to  law,  as  to  abstract  from  it  its 
whole  protective  power,  and  deprive  it  of  all  its 
conservative  tendencies  in  the  system,  is  one  of 
the  most  dangerous  forms  of  legal  injustice,  and, 
as  a  principle  of  action,  must  be  considered  as 


454  Organization  of  the 

subversive  of  all  order  and  government.  The  late 
General  Conference  required  of  Bishop  Andrew, 
the  same  being  equally  true  in  the  case  of  Hard- 
ing, as  the  condition  of  his  being  acceptable  to  the 
Church,  the  surrender  of  rights  secured  to  him, 
both  by  civil  and  ecclesiastical  law.  The  pur- 
poses of  law  were  contravened  and  destroyed,  and 
its  prerogative  and  place  usurped  by  mere  opinion. 
The  requisition  in  the  case  was  not  only  extra- 
judicial, being  made  in  the  absence  of  any  thing 
like  law  authorizing  the  measure,  but  being  made 
at  the  same  time  against  law,  it  was  usurpation ; 
and  so  far  as  the  proceeding  complained  of  is  in- 
tended to  establish  a  principle  of  action  with  re- 
gard to  the  future,  it  gives  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence all  the  attributes  of  a  despotism,  claiming 
the  right  to  govern  luithoiit,  ahove,  and  against  law. 
The  doctrine  avowed  at  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence, and  practically  indorsed  by  the  majority, 
that  that  body  may,  by  simple  resolution,  advisory, 
punitive,  or  declaratory,  repeal  an  existing  law  in 
relation  to  a  particular  case,  leaving  it  in  full  force 
with  regard  to  other  cases ;  or  may  enact  a  new 
and  different  law,  and  apply  it  judicially  to  the 
individual  case,  which  led  to  the  enactment,  and 
all  in  a  moment,  by  a  single  elevation  of  the  hand, 
is  a  position — a  doctrine — so  utterly  revolutionary 
and  disorganizing,  as  to  place  in  jeopardy  at  once, 
both  the  interests  and  reputation  of  the  Church. 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  455 

The  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  not  only 
assumed  the  character  and  usurped  the  place  of 
law,  but  was  clearly  an  instance  of  ex  fost  facto 
legislation,  by  making  that  an  offense  after  the 
act  which  w'as  not  such  before.  The  conduct 
charged  as  an  offense  was  at  the  time,  and  contin- 
ues to  be,  under  the  full  protection  of  a  w^ ell-un- 
derstood and  standing  law^  of  the  Church ;  and  yet 
this  conduct  was  made  criminal  and  punishable  by 
the  retrospective  action  of  the  Conference  to  which 
Ave  allude.  The  ofi&cially  expressed  will  of  the 
General  Conference  intended  to  govern  and  cir- 
cumscribe the  conduct  of  Bishop  Andrew,  without 
reference  to  existing  law,  and  indeed  contrary  to 
it,  was  made  the  rule  of  action,  and  he  found  guilty 
of  its  violation,  by  acts  done  before  he  was  made 
acquainted  with  it.  The  conduct  charged  w^as  in 
perfect  consistency  with  the  law  of  the  Church, 
and  could  only  be  wrought  into  an  offense  by  an 
ex  fod  facto  bearing  of  the  after -action  of  the 
General  Conference. 

Bishop  Andrew  became  the  owner  of  slave 
property,  involuntarily,  several  years  before  his 
marriage ;  and  as  the  fact,  and  not  the  extent,  of 
his  connection  w^ith  slavery  constituted  his  offense, 
it  follows  that,  for  a  relation  in  which  he  was 
placed  by  the  action  of  others,  and  the  operation 
of  civil  law,  and  in  which,  as  a  citizen  of  Georgia, 
he  was  compelled  to  remain,  or  be  brought  in  con- 


456  Organization  of  the 

flict  with  the  laws  of  the  State,  he  tvas,  in  viola- 
tion of  the  pledge  of  public  law,  as  we  have 
shown,  arrested  and  punished  by  the  General 
Conference.  That  body,  by  direct  requirement, 
such  at  least  by  implication,  commanded  him  to 
free  his  slaves,  or  suffer  official  degradation.  The 
law  of  Georgia  required  him  to  hold  his  slaves,  or 
transfer  them  to  be  held  as  such  by  others  under 
heavy  and  painful  penalties  to  master  and  slave. 
To  avoid  ecclesiastical  punishment  and  disability, 
the  Church  required  him  either  to  leave  the  State 
of  his  residence,  or  violate  its  laws.  In  this  way, 
taking  the  judicial  decision  in  Harding's  case,  and 
the  anomalous  action  in  Bishop  Andrew's,  the 
Church  is  placed  in  most  offensive  conflict  with 
the  civil  authority  of  the  State.  Can  any  coun- 
try or  government  safely  allow  the  Church  to  en- 
force disobedience  to  civil  law,  as  a  Christian>duty? 
If  such  attempts  are  made  to  subordinate  the 
civil  interests  of  the  State  to  the  schemes  and 
purposes  of  Church  innovation,  prompted  and 
sustained  by  the  bigotry  and  fanaticism  of  large 
masses  of  ignorant  and  misguided  zealots  engaged 
in  the  conflict  in  the  name  of  God  and  conscience, 
and  for  the  ostensible  purposes  of  religious  reform, 
what  can  be  the  stability  of  civil  government,  or 
the  hopes  of  those  seeking  its  protection?  And 
what,  we  ask,  must  be  the  interest  of  the  South 
in  connection  with  such  movements? 


3f.  E.   Church,  South.  457 

In  the  instance  of  slavery  in  this  country,  it  is 
but  too  well  known,  that  such  antagonism  as  is 
indicated  by  the  preceding  facts  and  developments 
between  the  purposes  of  the  Church  and  the  pol- 
icy of  the  State,  must  result  in  the  most  disas- 
trous consequences  to  both.  The  slavery  of  the 
Southern  States  can  never  be  reduced  in  amount 
or  mitigated  in  form  by  such  a  state  of  things. 
The  Southern  States  have  the  sole  control  of  the 
question,  under  the  authority  and  by  contract  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  and  all  hope  of  removing 
the  evil  of  slavery,  without  destroying  the  national 
compact  and  the  union  of  the  States,  must  connect 
with  the  individual  sovereignty  of  the  Southern 
States,  as  parties  to  the  Federal  compact,  and  the 
independent  policy  of  each  State  in  relation  to 
slavery,  as  likely  to  be  influenced  by  moral  and 
political  reasons,  and  motives,  brought  to  bear,  by 
proper  means  and  methods,  upon  the  understand- 
ing and  moral  sense  of  the  Southern  people.  All 
trespass  upon  right,  whether  as  it  regards  the 
rights  of  property  or  of  character — every  thing 
like  aggression,  mere  denunciation  or  abuse — must 
of  necessity  tend  to  provoke  farther  resistance  on 
the  part  of  the  South,  and  lessen  the  influence 
the  North  might  otherwise  have  upon  the  great 
mass  of  the  Southern  people,  in  relation  to  this 
great  and  exciting  interest.  '  The  true  character 
and  actual  relations  of  slavery  in  the  United 
20 


458  Organkaiion  of  the 

States  are  so  predominantli/  civil  and  political  that 
any  attempt  to  treat  the  subject,  or  control  the 
question,  upon  purely  moral  and  ecclesiastical 
grounds,  can  never  exert  any  salutary  influence 
South,  except  in  so  far  as  the  moral  and  ecclesias- 
tical shall  be  found  strictly  subordinate  to  the 
civil  and  political.  This  mode  of  appeal,  it  is  be- 
lieved, will  never  satisfy  the  North.  The  whole 
Northern  portion  of  the  Church,  speaking  through 
their  guides  and  leaders,  is  manifesting  an  increas- 
ing disposition  to  form  issues  upon  the  subject,  so 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  rights  and  peace  of 
the  slaveholding  States,  that  by  how  far  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  the  South  may  contrib- 
ute to  the  bringing  about  of  such  a  state  of  things, 
or  may  fail  to  resist  it,  the  influence  of  Method- 
ism must  be  depressed,  and  the  interest  of  the 
Church  suffer.  In  addition,  then,  to  the  fact  that 
we  have  already  received  an  amount  of  injury 
beyond  what  we  can  bear,  except  under  a  sepa- 
rate organization,  we  have  the  strongest  grounds 
of  apprehension,  that  unless  we  place  ourselves  in 
a  state  of  defense  and  prepare  for  independent 
action,  under  the  distinct  jurisdiction  we  are  now 
authorized  by  the  General  Conference  to  resolve 
upon,  and  organize,  we  shall  soon  find  ourselves 
so  completely  subjected  to  the  adverse  views  and 
policy  of  the  Northern  majority,  as  to  be  left 
without  right  or  remedy,  except  as  a  mere  seces- 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  459 

sion  from  the  Church.  Now,  the  case  is  entirely 
clifTerent,  as  we  propose  to  do  nothing  not  author- 
ized in  the  General  Conference  Plan  of  Separa- 
tion, either  expressly  or  by  necessary  implication. 
The  general  view  thus  far  taken  of  the  subject  is 
intended  to  show  that  "the  Annual  Conferences 
in  the  slaveholding  States,"  embracing  the  entire 
Church,  South,  have  found  themselves  placed  in 
circumstances,  by  the  action  of  the  General  Con- 
ference in  May  last,  which,  according  to  the  declar- 
ation of  the  Southern  delegates,  at  the  time,  ren- 
der it  impracticable  to  accomplish  the  objects  of 
the  Christian  ministry  and  Church -organization, 
under  the  present  system  of  General  Conference 
control,  and  showing,  by  the  most  clear  and  con- 
clusive evidence,  that  there  exists  the  most  urgent 
necessity  for  the  "separate  ecclesiastical  connec- 
tion," constitutionally  provided  for  by  the  General 
Conference  upon  the  basis  of  the  Declaration  just 
adverted  to.  At  the  date  of  the  Declaration  the 
Southern  delegates  w^ere  fully  convinced  that  the 
frequent  and  exciting  agitation  and  action  in  that 
body  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  as 
in  Harding's  case,  and  especially  the  proceedings 
in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew — each  being  regarded 
as  but  a  practical  exposition  of  the  principle  of 
the  majority — rendered  a  separate  organization  in- 
dispensable to  the  success  of  Methodism  in  the 
South.     The  truth  of  the  Declaration,  so  far  from 


460  Organization  of  the 

being  called  in  question  by  the  majority,  was 
promptly  conceded  in  the  immediate  action  the 
Conference  had  upon  it,  assigning  the  Declaration 
as  the  sole  ground  or  reason  of  the  action,  which 
terminated  in  the  adoption  of  the  Plan  of  Sepa- 
ration, under  which  we  are  now  acting  as  a  Con- 
vention, and  from  the  spirit  and  intention  of  which 
it  is  believed  to  be  the  purpose  of  the  Convention 
not  to  depart  in  any  of  its  deliberations  or  final 
acts.  Although  the  action  of  this  General  Con- 
ference on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  the  rela- 
tive adverse  position  of  the  parties  North  and 
South,  together  with  the  irritating  and  exasper- 
ating evils  of  constant  agitation  and  frequent  at- 
tempts at  legislation,  are  made  in  the  Declaration 
the  grounds  of  the  avowal,  that  a  separate  organi- 
zation was  necessary  to  the  success  of  the  minis- 
try in  the  slaveholding  States,  it  was  by  no  means 
intended  to  convey  the  idea,  or  make  the  impres- 
sion, that  no  other  causes  existed  rendering  a 
separate  organization  proper  and  necessary;  but 
as  the  action  of  the  Conference  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  was  certain  to  involve  the  Church  in  the 
South  in  immediate  and  alarming  difficulty,  and 
it  was  believed  that  this  could  be  so  shown  to  the 
majority  as  to  induce  them  to  consent  to  some 
course  of  action  in  remedy  of  the  evil,  the  com- 
plaint of  the  Declaration  was  confined  to  the  sim- 
ple topic  of  slavery.     It  will  be  perceived  that 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  461 

the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  although  prominently 
introduced,  is  not  relied  upon  as  exclusively  fur- 
nishing the  data  of  this  conclusion  at  which  we 
have  arrived.  The  entire  action  the  General  Con- 
ference so  frequently  brought  to  view,  and  which 
is  made  the  ground  of  dissent  and  action,  both  in 
the  Protest  and  Declaration  of  the  Southern  Dele- 
gates, must  be  understood  as  belonging  to  the 
premises  and  language  employed  as  including  all 
the  principles  avowed,  as  well  as  the  action  had 
by  the  late  General  Conference  on  the  subject  of 
slavery.  The  attempt  to  disclaim  the  judicial 
character  of  the  action  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case 
and  show  it  to  be  merely  advisory,  cannot  affect, 
the  preceding  reasoning;  for,  first,  the  disclaimei 
is  as  equivocal  in  character  as  the  original  action, 
and,  secondly,  the  reasoning  in  support  of  the  dis- 
claimer negatives  the  supposition  of  mere  advice, 
because  it  involves  issues  coming  legitimately 
within  the  province  of  judicial  process  and  legal 
determination;  and,  thirdly.  Bishop  Andrew  is,  by 
the  explanation  of  the  disclaimer  itself,  held  as 
responsible  for  his  conduct,  in  view  of  the  alleged 
advice,  as  he  could  have  been  held  by  the  original 
action  without  the  explanation.  While,  therefore, 
the  explanation  giving  the  original  action  an  ad- 
visor?/  character,  notwithstanding  the  inconsistency 
involved,  fully  protects  Bishops  Soule  and  An- 
drew from  even  the  shadow  of  blame  in  the  course 


462  Organization  of  the 

they  have  pursued,  the  entire  action  in  the  case, 
and  especially  when  connected  with  the  case  of 
Harding,  as  alluded  to  in  the  Declaration,  fully 
sustains  the  general  view  of  the  subject  we  have 
taken  in  this  Report.  The  Southern  delegates  at 
the  General  Conference,  in  presenting  to  that  body 
their  Declaration  and  Protest,  acted,  and  they 
continue  to  act,  as  the  representatives  of  the 
South,  under  the  full  conviction  that  the  princi- 
ples and  policy  avowed  by  the  Northern  majority 
are  such  as  to  render  their  loiiblic  and  'practical  re- 
nunciation by  the  Southern  Methodist  ministry 
and  people  necessary  to  the  safety,  not  less  than 
the  success,  of  the  Church  in  the  South. 

Other  views  of  the  subject,  however,  must  claim 
a  share  of  our  attention.  Among  the  many 
weighty  reasons  w^hich  influence  the  Southern 
Conferences  in  seeking  to  be  released  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  now  constituted, 
are  the  novel,  and,  as  we  think,  dangerous  doc- 
trines, practically  avowed  and  indorsed  by  that 
body  and  the  Northern  portion  of  the  Church 
generally,  with  regard  to  the  constitution  of  the 
Church,  and  the  constitutional  rights  and  powers 
respectively  of  the  Episcopacy  and  the  General  Con- 
ference. In  relation  to  the  first,  it  is  confidently, 
although  most  unaccountably,  maintained  that 
the  six  short  Restrictive  Rules  which  were  adopted 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  463 

in  1808,  and  first  became  obligatory,  as  an  amend- 
ment to  the  constitution,  in  1812,  are  in  fact  tlie 
true  and  onli/  constitution  of  the  Church.  This 
single  position,  should  it  become  an  established 
principle  of  action  to  the  extent  it  found  favor 
Avith  the  last  General  Conference,  must  subvert 
the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
It  must  be  seen  at  once,  that  the  position  leaves 
many  of  the  organic  laws  and  most  important  in- 
stitutions of  the  Church  entirely  unprotected  and 
at  the  mercy  of  a  mere  and  ever-fluctuating  ma- 
jority of  the  General  Conference.  Episcopacy, 
for  example,  although  protected  in  the  abstract,  in 
general  terms,  may  be  entirely  superseded  or  de- 
stroyed by  the  simple  omission  to  elect  or  con- 
secrate Bishops,  neither  of  which  is  provided  for 
in  the  Restrictive  Articles.  The  w^hole  itinerant 
system,  except  general  superintendency,  is  with- 
out protection  in  the  Restrictive  Rules;  and  there 
is  nothing  in  them  preventing  the  Episcopacy  from 
restricting  their  superintendency  to  local  and  set- 
tied  pastors,  rather  than  a  traveling  ministry,  and 
thus  destroying  the  most  distinctive  feature  of 
Wesleyan  Methodism.  So  far  as  the  Restrictive 
Rules  are  concerned,  the  Annual  Conferences  are 
without  protection,  and  might  also  be  destroyed 
by  the  General  Conference  at  any  time.  If  the 
new  constitutional  theory  be  correct,  class-leaders 
and  private  members  are  as  eligible,  upon  the 


464  Organization  of  the 

basis  of  the  constitution,  to  a  seat  in  the  General 
Conference  as  any  ministers  of  the  Church.  So- 
cieties, too,  instead  of  Annual  Conferences,  may 
elect  delegates,  and  may  elect  laymen  instead  of 
ministers,  or  local  instead  of  traveling  ministers. 
Very  few  indeed  of  the  more  fundamental  and 
distinguishing  elements  of  Methodism,  deeply  and 
imperishably  imbedded  in  the  affection  and  vener- 
ation of  the  Church,  and  vital  to  its  very  exist- 
ence, are  even  alluded  to  in  the  Restrictive  Arti- 
cles. This  theory  assumes  the  self-refuted  ab- 
surdity, that  the  General  Conference  is  in  fact  the 
government  of  the  Church,  if  not  the  Church  it- 
self. With  no  other  constitution  than  these  mere 
restrictions  upon  the  powers  and  rights  of  the 
General  Conference,  the  government  and  discipline 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  a  system  of 
organized  laws  and  well-adjusted  instrumentalities 
for  the  spread  of  the  gospel  and  the  diffusion  of 
piety,  and  w^hose  living  principles  of  energy  and 
action  have  so  long  commanded  the  admiration  of 
the  world,  would  soon  cease  even  to  exist.  The 
startling  assumption  that  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  instead  of  holding  office  under 
the  constitution,  and  by  tenure  of  law,  and  the  faith- 
ful performance  of  duty,  is  nothing  in  his  charac- 
ter of  Bishop  but  a  mere  officer  at  will  of  the 
General  Conference,  and  may  accordingly  be  de- 
posed at  any  time,  with  or  without  cause,  accusa- 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  465 

tion,  proof,  or  form  of  trial,  as  a  dominant  majority 
may  capriciously  elect,  or  party  interests  suggest 
— and  that  the  General  Conference  may  do,  by 
right,  whatever  is  not  prohibited  by  the  Restric- 
tive Rules,  and,  with  this  single  exception,  possess 
power,  "supreme  and  all-controlling;"  and  this,  in 
all  possible  forms  of  its  manifestation,  legislative, 
judicial,  and  executive — the  same  men  claiming 
to  be  at  the  same  time  both  the  fountain  and  func- 
tionaries of  all  the  powers  of  government,  wdiich 
powers,  thus  mingled  and  concentrated  into  a  com- 
mon force,  may  at  any  time  be  employed,  at  the 
prompting  of  their  own  interests,  caprice,  or  am- 
bition. Such  wild  and  revolutionary  assumptions, 
so  unlike  the  faith  and  discipline  of  Methodism, 
as  we  have  been  taught  them,  we  are  compelled 
to  regard  as  fraught  with  mischief  and  ruin  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  Church,  and  as  furnishing  a 
strong  additional  reason  why  we  should  avail  our- 
selves of  the  warrant  w^e  now  have,  but  may 
never  again  obtain,  from  the  General  Conference, 
to  *^  establish  an  ecclesiastical  connection,"  em- 
bracing only  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slave- 
holding  States. 

Without  intending  any  thing  more  than  a  gen- 
eral specification  of  the  disabilities  under  which 
the  Southern  part  of  the  Church  labors,  in  view 
of  existing  difficulties,  and  must  continue  to  do  so 
until  they  are  removed,  we  must  not  omit  to  state, 
20* 


466  Organization  of  tJie 

that  should  we  submit  to  the  action  of  the  late 
General  Conference,  and  decline  a  separate  organ- 
ization, it  would  be  to  place,  and  finally  confirm, 
the  whole  Southern  ministry  in  the  relation  of  an 
inferior  caste,  the  effect  of  which,  in  spite  of  all 
elTort  to  the  contrary,  would  be  such  a  relation, 
if  not  (as  we  think)  real  degradation  of  the  min- 
istry, as  to  destroy  its  influence  to  a  great — a 
most  fearful — extent  throughout  the  South.  A 
practical  proscription,  under  show  of  legal  right, 
has  long  been  exercised  toward  the  South,  Avith 
regard  to  the  higher  offices  of  the  Church,  espe- 
cially the  Episcopacy.  To  this,  however,  the 
South  submitted  with  patient  endurance,  and  was 
willing  farther  to  submit  in  order  to  maintain  the 
peace  and  unity  of  the  Church,  while  the  princijjle 
involved  was  disavowed,  and  decided  to  be  unjust, 
as  by  the  decision  of  the  General  Conference  in 
1840.  But  w^hen,  in  1844,  the  General  Confer- 
ence declared  by  their  action,  without  the  forms 
of  legislative  or  judicial  process,  that  the  mere 
providential  ownership  of  slave  property,  in  a 
State  where  emancipation  is  legally  prohibited 
under  all  circumstances,  and  can  only  be  effected 
by  special  legislative  enactment,  was  hereafter 
to  operate  as  a  forfeiture  of  right  in  all  similar 
cases,  the  law  of  the  Church  and  the  decision 
of  the  preceding  General  Conference  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding,  the  Southern  ministry 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  467 

were  compelled  to  realize  that  they  were  de- 
liberately fixed,  by  the  brand  of  common  shame, 
in  the  degrading  relation  of  standing  inferiority 
to  ministers,  not  actually,  nor  yet  liable  to 
be,  connected  with  slavery,  and  that  they  were 
published  to  the  Church  and  the  world  as  be- 
longing to  a  caste  in  the  ministry,  from  which 
the  higher  offices  of  the  Church  could  never  be 
selected. 

To  submit,  under  such  circumstances,  would 
have  been  a  practical,  a  most  humiliating  recogni- 
tion of  the  inferiority  of  cade,  attempted  to  be 
fixed  upon  us  by  the  Northern  majority,  and 
would  have  justly  authorized  the  inference  of  a 
want  of  conscious  integrity  and  self-respect,  well 
calculated  to  destroy  both  the  reputation  and  in- 
fluence of  the  ministry  in  all  the  slaveholding 
States.  It  may  be  no  virtue  to  avow  it,  but  we 
confess  we  have  no  humility  courting  the  grace  of 
such  a  baptism.  The  higher  objects,  therefore,  of 
the  Christian  ministry,  not  less  than  conscious 
right  and  self-respect,  demanded  resistance  on  the 
part  of  the  Southern  ministry  and  Church,  and 
these  unite  with  other  reasons  in  vindicating  the 
plea  of  necessity,  upon  which  the  meeting  and 
action  of  this  Convention  are  based,  with  the  con- 
sent and  approval  of  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  variety  of 
interests  involved,  renders  it  necessary  that  the 


^468  Organisation  of  the 

brief  view  of  the  subject  we  are  allowed  to  take, 
be  varied  accordingl3^ 

Unless  the  Southern  Conferences  organize  as 
proposed,  it  is  morally  certain,  in  view  of  the 
evidence  before  the  committee,  that  the  gospel, 
now  regularly  and  successfully  dispensed  by  the 
ministers  of  these  Conferences  to  about  a  million 
of  slaves,  in  their  various  fields  of  missionary  en- 
terprise and  pastoral  charge,  must,  to  a  great  ex- 
tent, be  withheld  from  them,  and  immense  masses 
of  this  unfortunate  chiss  of  our  fellow-beings  be 
left  to  perish,  as  the  result  of  Church-interference 
with  the  civil  affairs  and  relations  of  the  country. 

The  committee  are  compelled  to  believe  that 
the  mere  division  of  jurisdiction,  as  authorized  by 
the  General  Conference,  cannot  affect  either  the 
moral  or  legal  unity  of  the  great  American  family 
of  Christians,  known  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  this  opinion  is  concurred  in  by  the 
ablest  jurists  of  the  country.  We  do  nothing  but 
what  we  are  expressly  authorized  to  do  by  the  su- 
preme, or  rather  highest,  legislative  power  of  the 
Church.  Would  the  Church  authorize  us  to  do 
wrong?  The  division  relates  only  to  the  power 
of  general  jurisdiction,  which  it  is  not  proposed  to 
destroy  or  even  reduce,  but  simply  to  invest  it  in 
two  great  organs  of  Church -action  and  control, 
instead  of  one  as  at  present.  Such  a  change  in  the 
present  system  of  general  control  cannot  disturb 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  469 

the  moral  unity  of  the  Church,  for  it  is  strictly  an 
agreed  modification  of  General  Conference  jurisdic- 
tion, and  such  agreement  and  consent  of  parties 
must  preclude  the  idea  of  disunion.  In  view 
of  what  is  the  alleged  disunion  predicated?  Is 
the  purpose  and  act  of  becoming  a  separate  organ- 
ization proof  of  disunion,  or  want  of  proper 
Church -unity?  This  cannot  be  urged  with  any 
show  of  consistency,  inasmuch  as  "the  several 
Annual  Conferences  in  General  Conference  assem- 
bled," that  is  to  say,  the  Church  through  only  its 
constitutional  organ  of  action,  on  all  subjects  in- 
volving the  power  of  legislation,  not  only  agreed  to 
the  separate  organization  South,  but  made  full  con- 
stitutional provision  for  carrying  it  into  effect.  It 
is  a  separation  by  consent  of  parties,  under  the 
highest  authority  of  the  Church.  Is  it  intended 
to  maintain  that  the  unity  of  the  Church  depends 
upon  the  modal  uniformity  of  the  jurisdiction  in 
question?  If  this  be  so,  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  has  lost  its  unity  at  several  different 
times.  The  general  jurisdiction  of  the  Church 
has  undergone  modifications,  at  several  different 
times,  not  less  vital,  if  not  greatly  more  so,  than 
the  one  now  proposed.  The  high  conventional 
powers,  of  which  we  are  so  often  reminded,  exer- 
cised in  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  were  in  the  hands  of  a  Conference 
of  unordained  lay-preachers^  under  the  sole  super- 


470  Organkaiion  of  ike 

intendence  of  an  appointee  of  Mr.  Wesley.  This 
was  the  first  General  Conference  type  and  original 
form  of  the  jurisdiction  in  question.  The  juris- 
dictional power  now  proposed  by  the  General  Con- 
ference was  for  3^ears.  exercised  by  small  Annual 
Conferences,  without  any  defined  boundaries,  and 
acting  separately  on  all  measures  proposed  for 
their  determination.  This  general  power  of  juris-- 
diction  next  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Bishops' 
Council,  consisting  of  some  ten  persons,  where  it 
remained  for  a  term  of  years.  Next  it  passed 
into  the  hands  of  the  whole  itinerant  ministry,  in 
full  connection,  and  was  exercised  by  them,  in 
collective  action,  as  a  General  Conference  of  the 
whole  body,  met  together  at  the  same  time.  The 
power  was  afterward  vested  in  the  whole  body 
of  traveling  Elders,  and  from,  thence  finally  passed 
into  the  hands  of  Delegates,  elected  by  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  to  meet  and  act  quadrennially 
as  a  General  Conference,  under  constitutional  re- 
strictions and  limitations.  Here  are  several  suc- 
cessive reorganizations  of  General  Conference  ju- 
risdiction, each  involving  a  much  more  material 
change  than  that  contemplated  in  the  General 
Conference  plan,  by  authority  of  which  this  Con- 
vention is  about  to  erect  the  sixteen  Annual  Con- 
ferences in  the  slaveholding  States  into  a  separate 
organization.  We  change  no  principle  in  the 
existing  theory  of  General  Conference  jurisdiction. 


M,  E.  CJiiirch,  South,  471 

We  distinctly  recognize  the  jurisdiction  of  a  dele- 
gated General  Conference,  receiving  its  appoint- 
ment and  authority  from  the  whole  constituency 
of  Annual  Conferences.  The  only  change,  in  fact 
or  in  form,  will  be  that  the  delegates  of  the  "An- 
nual Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,"  as 
authorized  in  the  Plan  of  Separation,  will  meet  in 
one  General  Conference  assembly  of  their  own,, 
and  act  in  behalf  only  of  their  own  constituency, 
and  in  the  regulation  of  their  own  affairs,  consist- 
ently with  the  good  faith  and  fealty  they  owe  the 
authority  and  laws  of  the  several  States  in  which 
they  reside,  without  interfering  with  affairs  beyond 
their  jurisdiction,  or  suffering  foreign  interference 
with  their  own.  And  in  proceeding  to  do  this, 
we  have  all  the  authority  it  was  in  the  power  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  confer.  We 
have  also  farther  example  and  precedent  in  the 
history  of  Methodism,  to  show  that  there  is  noth- 
ing irregular  or  inconsistent  with  Church -order  or 
unity  in  the  separation  proposed.  The  great  Wes- 
leyan  Methodist  family,  everywhere  one  in  faith 
and  practice,  already  exists  under  several  distinct 
and  unconnected  jurisdictions — there  is  no  juris- 
dictional or  connectional  union  between  them;  and 
yet  it  has  never  been  pretended  that  these  several 
distinct  organizations  were  in  any  sense  inconsist- 
ent with  Church-unity.  If  the  Southern  Confer- 
ences proceed,  then,  to  the  establishment  of  an- 


472  Organization  of  the 

other  distinct  jurisdiction,  without  any  change  of 
doctrine  or  disciphne,  except  in  matters  necessary 
to  the  mere  economical  adjustment  of  the  system, 
will  it  furnish  any  reason  for  supposing  that  the 
real  unity  of  the  Church  is  affected  by  what  all 
must  perceive  to  be  a  simple  division  of  jurisdic- 
tion? When  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding 
States  are  separately  organized  as  a  distinct  eccle- 
siastical connection,  they  will  only  be  what  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  authorized  them  to  be.  Can  this 
be  irregular  or  subversive  of  Church-unity  ?  Acting 
under  the  Provisional  Plan  of  Separation,  they 
must,  although  a  separate  organization,  remain  in 
essential  union  with,  and  be  part  and  parcel  of,  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  every  scriptural 
and  moral  view  of  the  subject;  for  what  they  do  is 
with  the  full  consent,  and  has  the  official  sanction, 
of  the  Church  as  represented  in  the  General  Con- 
ference. The  jurisdiction  we  are  about  to  estab- 
lish and  assert  as  separate  and  independent,  is 
expressly  declined  and  ceded  by  the  General  Con- 
ference as  originally  its  own,  to  the  Southern  Con- 
ferences, for  the  specific  purpose  of  being  estab- 
lished and  asserted  in  the  manner  proposed.  All 
idea  of  secession,  or  an  organization  alien  in  right 
or  relation  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  is 
forever  precluded  by  the  terms  and  conditions  of 
the  authorized  Plan  of  Separation.  '  In  whatever 
sense  we  are  separatists  or  seceders,  we  are  such 


31.  E.  Church,  South,  473 

by  authority — the  highest  authority  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church.  To  whatever  extent  or 
in  whatever  aspect  we  are  not  true  and  faithful 
ministers  and  members  of  that  Church,  such  de- 
linquency or  misfortune  is  authenticated  by  her 
act  and  approval,  and  she  declares  us  to  be  "with- 
out blame."  "Ministers  of  every  grade  and  office 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  may,  as  they 
prefer,  without  blame,  attach  themselves  to  the 
Church,  South."  Bishops,  Elders,  and  Deacons 
come  into  the  Southern  organization  at  their  own 
election,  under  permission  from  the  General  Con- 
ference, not  only  accredited  as  ministers  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  with  credentials 
limiting  the  exercise  of  their  functions  within  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Chujxh.  Is  it  conceivable  that 
the  General  Conference  Avould  so  act  and  hold 
such  language  in  relation  to  an  ecclesiastical  con- 
nection which  was  to  be  regarded  as  a  secession 
from  the  Church?  Does  not  such  act  and  language, 
and  the  whole  Plan  of  Separation,  rather  show  that 
as  the  South  had  asked,  so  the  General  Confer- 
ence intended  to  authorize  a  simple  division  of  its 
own  jurisdiction,  and  nothing  more? 

All  idea  of  secession,  or  schism,  or  loss  of  right 
or  title,  as  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  being  precluded  by  the  specific  grant  or 
authority  under  which  we  act,  as  well  as  for  otl^er 
reasons  assigned,  many  considerations  might  be 


474  Organization  of  the 

urged,  strongly  suggesting  the  Jitness  and  propriet?/ 
of  the  separate  jurisdiction  contemplated,  rendered 
necessarjj^  as  we  have  seen,  upon  other  and  different 
grounds;  and  among  these  the  increased  value  of 
the  representative  princij^le  likely  to  be  secured 
by  the  change,  is  by  no  means  unworthy  of  no- 
tice. At  the  first  representative  General  Confer- 
ence, thirty-three  years  ago,  each  delegate  repre- 
sented five  traveling  ministers  and  about  two 
thousand  members,  and  the  body  -was  of  conve- 
nient size  for  the  transaction  of  business.  At  the 
late  General  Conference,  each  delegate  was  the 
representative  of  twenty-one  ministers  and  more 
than  five  thousand  members,  and  the  body  was  in- 
conveniently large  for  the  purpose  of  deliberation 
and  action.  Should  the  number  of  delegates  in  the 
General  Conference  be  increased  w^ith  the  probable 
growth  of  the  Church,  the  body  will  soon  become 
utterly  unwieldy.  Should  the  number  be  reduced, 
while  the  ministry  and  membership  are  multiply- 
ing, the  representative  principle  would  become  to 
be  little  more  than  nominal,  and,  in  the  same  pro- 
portion, without  practical  value.  -Beside  that  the 
proposed  reorganization  of  jurisdiction  will  remedy 
this  evil,  at  least  to  a  great  extent,  it  will  result 
in  the  saving  of  much  time  and  expense  and  use- 
ful services  to  the  Church,  connected  with  the 
travel  and  protracted  sessions  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, not  only  as  regards  the  delegates,  but  also 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  475 

the  bench  of  Bishops,  whose  general  oversight 
might  become  much  more  minute  and  pastoral  in 
its  character,  by  means  of  such  an  arrangement. 
When,  in  1808,  the  Annual  Conferences  resolved 
upon  changing  the  form  of  General  Conference 
jurisdiction,  the  precise  reasons  we  have  just  no- 
ticed were  deemed  sufficient  ground  and  motive 
for  the  chanire  introduced;  and  as  we  are  seekinfi; 
only  a  similar  change  of  jurisdiction,  although  for 
other  purposes  as  well  as  this,  the  f^icts  to  which 
we  ask  attention  are  certainly  worthy  of  being 
taken  into  the  estimate  of  advantages  likely  to 
result  from  a  separate  and  independent  organiza- 
tion, especially  as  the  ministry  and  membership, 
since  1808,  have  increased  full  seven  hundred  i^cr 
centum;  and  should  they  continue  to  increase,  in 
something  like  the  same  ratio,  for  thirty  years  to 
come,  under  the  present  system  of  General  Con- 
ference jurisdiction,  some  such  change  as  that 
authorized  by  the  late  General  Conference  must 
be  resorted  to,  or  the  Church  resign  itself  to  the 
virtual  extinction  of  the  representative  principle, 
as  an  important  element  of  government  action. 

In  establishing  a  separate  jurisdiction  as  before 
defined  and  explained,  so  far  from  affecting  the 
moral  oneness  and  integrity  of  the  great  Method- 
ist body  in  America,  the  effect  will  be  to  secure  a 
very  different  result.  In  resolving  upon  a  sepa- 
rate Connection,  as  we  are  about  to  do,  the  one 


476  Organization  of  the 

great  and  controlling  motive  is  to  restore  and  per- 
petuate the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church.  At 
present  we  have  neither,  nor  are  we  likely  to 
have,  should  the  Southern  and  Northern  Confer- 
ences remain  in  connectional  relation,  as  hereto- 
fore. Inferring  effects  from  causes  known  to  he  in 
existence  and  active  operation,  agitation  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery  is  certain  to  continue,  and  frequent 
action  in  the  General  Conference  is  equally  certain, 
and  the  result,  as  heretofore,  will  be  excitement 
and  discontent,  aggression  and  resistance.  Should 
the  South  retire  and  decline  all  farther  conflict,  by 
the  erection  of  the  Southern  Conferences  into  a 
separate  jurisdiction,  as  authorized  by  the  General 
Conference  plan,  agitation  in  the  Church  cannot 
be  brought  in  contact  with  the  South,  and  the 
former  irritation  and  evils  of  the  controversy 
must,  to  a  great  extent,  cease,  or  at  any  rate  so 
lose  their  disturbing  force  as  to  become  compara- 
tively harmless.  Should  the  Northern  Church 
continue  to  discuss  and  agitate,  it  will  be  within 
their  own  borders  and  among  themselves,  and  the 
evil  effects  upon  the  South  must,  to  say  the  least, 
be  greatly  lessened.  At  present,  the  consolidation 
of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  under  the  jurisdic- 
tional control  of  one  General  Conference,  always 
giving  a  decided  Northern  majority,  places  it  in 
the  power  of  that  majority  to  manage  and  control 
the  interests  of  the  Church,  in  the  slaveholding 


31.  E.  Church,  South,  477 

States,  as  they  see  proper,  and  we  have  no  means 
of  protection  against  the  evils  certain  to  be  in- 
flicted upon  us,  if  we  judge  the  future  from  the 
past.  The  whole  power  of  legislation  is  in  the 
General  Conference,  and  as  that  body  is  now  con- 
stituted, the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  South  are 
perfectly  powerless  in  the  resistance  of  wrong, 
and  have  no  alternative  left  them  but  uncondi- 
tional submission.  And  such  submission  to  the 
views  and  action  of  the  Northern  majority  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  it  is  now  demonstrated  must 
bring  disaster  and  ruin  upon  Southern  Methodism, 
by  rendering  the  Church  an  object  of  distrust  on 
the  part  of  the  State.  In  this  way,  the  assumed 
conservative  power  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  with  regard  to  the  civil  union  of  the  States, 
is  to  a  great  extent  destroyed,  and  we  are  com- 
pelled to  believe  that  it  is  the  interest,  and  be- 
comes the  duty,  of  the  Church  in  the  South  to 
seek  to  exert  such  conservative  influence  in  some 
other  form ;  and  after  the  most  mature  deliberation 
and  careful  examination  of  the  whole  subject,  we 
know  of  nothing  so  likely  to  effect  the  object  as 
the  jurisdictional  separation  of  the  great  Church 
parties  unfortunately  involved  in  a  religious  and 
ecclesiastical  controversy  about  an  affair  of  State 
^ — a  question  of  civil  policy,  over  which  the  Church 
has  no  control,  and  with  which,  it  is  believed,  she 
has  no  right  to  interfere.     Among  the  nearly  five 


478  Organization  of  the 

hundred  thousand  ministers  and  members  of  the 
Conferences  represented  in  this  Convention,  we  do 
not  know  one  not  deeply  and  intensely  interested  in 
the  safety  and  'perpetuity  of  the  National  Union^ 
nor  can  we  for  a  moment  hesitate  to  pledge  them  all 
against  any  course  oi  action  oy policy  not  calculated, 
in  their  judgment,  to  render  that  union  as  immor- 
tal as  the  hopes  of  pat?'iotism  tuoidd  have  it  to  he !  . 
Before  closing  the  summary  view  of  the  whole 
subject  taken  in  this  Report,  we  cannot  refrain 
from  a  brief  notice  of  the  relations  and  interests 
of  Southern  border  Conferences.  These,  it  must 
be  obvious,  are  materially  different  from  those  of 
the  more  Southern  Conferences.  They  do  not,  for 
the  present,  feel  the  pressure  of  the  strong  neces- 
sity impelling  the  South,  proper,  to  immediate 
separation.  They  are,  however,  involved  with 
regard  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  controversy, 
and  committed  to  well-defined  principles,  in  the 
same  way,  and  to  the  same  extent,  with  the  most 
Southern  Conferences.  They  have  with  almost 
perfect  unanimity,  by  public  official  acts,  protested 
against  the  entire  action  of  the  late  General  Con- 
ference on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  in  reference 
to  the  relative  rights  and  powers  of  Episcopacy 
and  the  General  Conference,  as  not  only  unconsti- 
tutional, but  revohdionary,  and,  therefore,  dangerous 
to  the  best  interests  of  the  Church.  They  have 
solemnly  declared,  by  approving  and  indorsing  the 


31.  E,  Church,  South,  479 

Declaration,  the  Protest,  and  Address  of  the 
Southern  delegates,  that  the  objects  of  their  min- 
istry cannot  be  accomplished  under  the  existing 
jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference,  without 
reparation  for  past  injury  and  security  against 
future  aggression;  and  unless  the  border  Confer- 
ences have  good  and  substantial  reason  to  belieA'^e 
such  reparation  and  security  not  only  jjrohaUe, 
but  so  certain  as  to  remove  reasonahle  doubt,  they 
have,  so  far  as  princ{j)le  and  pledge  are  concerned, 
the  same  motive  for  action  with  the  Conferences 
South  of  them.  Against  the  principles  thus 
avowed  by  every  one  of  the  Conferences  in  ques- 
tion, the  antislavery  and  abolition  of  the  North 
have,  through  official  Church-organs,  declared  the 
most  open  and  undisguised  hostility,  and  these 
Conferences  are  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  de- 
ciding upon  adherence  to  the  principles  they  have 
officially  avowed,  or  of  a  resort  to  expediency  to 
adjust  difficulties  in  some  unknown  form,  which 
they  have  said  could  only  be  adjusted  by  substan- 
tial reparation  for  past  injury,  and  good  and  suffi- 
cient warrant  against  future  aggression.  The 
question  is  certainly  one  of  no  common  interest. 
Should  any  of  the  border  Conferences,  or  Societies 
South,  affiliate  with  the  North,  the  effect,  so  far  as 
we  can  see,  will  be  to  transfer  the  seat  of  war  from 
the  remoter  South  to  these  border  districts ;  and 
what,  we  ask,  will  be  the  security  of  these  districts 


480  Organization  of  the 

against  the  moral  ravages  of  such  a  war?  AVhat  pro- 
tection or  security  will  the  discipline  or  tlie  conserva- 
tism of  the  Middle  Conferences  afford?  Of  what 
avail  w^ere  these  at  the  last  General  Conference,  and 
has  either  more  influence  now  than  then?  The  con- 
troversy of  a  large  and  rapidly-increasing  portion 
of  the  North  is  not  so  much  with  the  South  as  with 
the  Discipline^  because  it  tolerates  slavery  in  any 
form  whatever;  and  should  the  Southern  Confer- 
ences remain  under  the  present  common  jurisdic- 
tion, or  any  slaveholding  portions  of  the  South 
unite  in  the  Northern  Connection  in  the  event  of 
division,  it  requires  very  little  discernment  to  see 
that  this  controversy  will  never  cease  until  every 
slaveholder  or  every  abolitionist  is  out  of  the  Con- 
nection. Beside,  the  border  Conferences  have  a 
great  and  most  delicate  interest  at  stake  in  view 
of  their  territorial  and  civil  and  political  relations, 
which  it  certainly  behooves  them  to  weigh  well  and 
examine  with  care  in  coming  to  the  final  conclusion, 
which  is  to  identify  them  with  the  North  or  the 
South.  Border  districts  going  with  the  North, 
after  and  notwithstanding  the  action  of  the  border 
Conferences,  must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  as 
found  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  affiliate, 
to  a  great  extent,  with  the  entire  aggregate  of 
Northern  antislavery  and  abolition,  as  now  em- 
barked against  the  interests  of  the  South — as  also 
with  all  the  recent  official  violations  of  right,  of 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  481 

law,  and  discipline,  against  which  the  South  is 
now  contending.  In  doing  this,  they  must  of  ne- 
cessity, if  we  have  reasoned  correctly,  elect  and 
contribute  their  influence  to  retain  in  the  Connec- 
tion of  their  choice  all  the  principles  and  elements 
of  strife  and  discord  which  have  so  long  and  fear- 
fully convulsed  the  Church.  Will  this  be  the 
election  of  Southern  border  sections  and  districts, 
or  will  they  remain  w^here,  by  location,  civil  and 
political  ties  and  relations,  and  their  own  avowed 
principles,  they  properly  belong,  firmly  planted 
upon  the  long  and  well-tried  platform  of  the  Dis- 
cipline of  our  common  choice,  and  from  which  the 
Methodism  of  the  South  has  never  manifested  any 
disposition  to  swerve?  To  the  Discipline  the 
South  has  always  been  loyal.  By  it  she  has 
ahided  in  every  trial.  Jealously  has  she  cherished 
and  guarded  that  "form  of  sound  words" — the 
faith,  the  ritual,  and  the  government  of  the  Church. 
It  was  Southern  defense  against  Northern  invasion 
of  the  Discipline,  which  brought  on  the  present 
struggle;  and  upon  the  Discipline,  the  whole 
Discipline,  the  South  proposes  to  organize,  under 
authority  of  the  General  Conference,  a  separate 
Connection  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
This  result,  from  first  to  last,  has  been  consented 
to  on  the  part  of  the  South  with  the  greatest  re- 
luctance. 

After  the  struggle  came  on,  at  the  late  General 
21 


482  Organization  of  Hie 

Conference,  the  Southern  delegates,  as  they  had 
often  done  before,  manifested  the  most  earnest 
desh'e,  and  did  all  in  their  power,  to  maintain 
jurisdictional  union  with  the  North,  without  sac- 
rificing the  interests  of  the  South :  when  this  was 
found  impracticable,  a  connectional  union  was  pro- 
posed, and  the  rejection  of  this  by  the  North  led 
to  the  projection  and  adoption  of  the  present  Gen- 
eral Conference  Plan  of  Separation.  Every  over- 
ture of  compromise,  every  plan  of  reconciliation 
and  adjustment,  regarded  as  at  all  eligible,  or 
likely  to  succeed,  was  offered  by  the  South  and 
rejected  by  the  North.  All  subsequent  attempts 
at  compromise  have  failed  in  like  manner,  and  the 
probability  of  any  such  adjustment,  if  not  extinct, 
is  lessening  every  day,  and  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences in  the  slaveholding  States  are  thus  left  to 
take  their  position  upon  the  ground  assigned  them 
by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  as  a  distinct 
ecclesiastical  connection,  ready  and  most  willing 
to  treat  with  the  Northern  division  of  the  Church 
at  any  time,  in  view  of  adjusting  the  difficulties 
of  this  controversy,  upon  terms  and  principles 
which  may  be  safe  and  satisfactory  to  both. 

Such  we  regard  as  the  true  'position  of  the  An- 
nual Conferences  represented  in  this  Convention. 
Therefore,  in  view  of  all  the  principles  and  in- 
terests involved,  appealing  to  the  Almighty  Searcher 
of  hearts  for   the   sincerity   of    our   motives,   and 


3L  E,  Church.  South.  483 


humlhj    involdng    the    Divine    hicssing   upon    our 
action, 

Be  it  Resolved,  hy  the  Delegates  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Churchy  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  General  Con- 
vention assembled,  That  it  is  right,  expedient,  and 
necessary  to  erect  the  Annual  Conferences,  repre- 
sented in  this  Convention,  into  a  distinct  ecclesias- 
tical connection,  separate  from  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  as  at  present  constituted;  and,  accordingly, 
we,  the  Delegates  of  said  Annual  Conferences, 
acting  under  the  Provisional  Plan  of  Separation 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  do 
solemnly  declare  the  jurisdiction  hitherto  exercised 
over  said  Annual  Conferences,  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  entirely 
,  dissolved;  and  that  said  Annual  Conferences  shall 
be,  and  they  hereby  are  constituted,  a  separate  eccle- 
siastical connection,  under  the  Provisional  Plan  of 
Separation  aforesaid,  and  based  upon  the  Discipline 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  comprehending 
the  doctrines,  and  entire  moral,  ecclesiastical,  and 
economical  rules  and  regulations  of  said  Discipline, 
except  only  in  so  far  as  verbal  alterations  may 
be  necessary  to  a  distinct  organization,  and  to  be 
known  by  the  style  and  title  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South. 

Resolved,    That  while  we   cannot   abandon  or 


484  Organization  of  the 

compromise  the  principles  of  action  upon  which 
we  proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South; 
nevertheless,  cherishing  a  sincere  desire  to  main- 
tain Christian  union  and  fraternal  intercourse 
with  the  Church,  North,  we  shall  always  be  ready 
kindly  and  respectfully  to  entertain,  and  duly  and 
carefully  consider,  any  proposition  or  plan  having 
for  its  object  the  union  of  the  two  great  bodies  in 
the  North  and  South,  whether  such  proposed  union 
be  jurisdictional  or  connectional. 

Resolved^  That  this  Convention  request  the 
Bishops  presiding  at  the  ensuing  sessions  of  the 
border  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  to  incorporate  into  the  aforesaid 
Conferences  any  societies  or  stations  adjoining  the 
line  of  division,  provided  such  societies  or  stations 
by  the  majority  of  the  members,  according  to  the 
provisions  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  aforesaid, 
request  such  an  arrangement. 

Resolved,  That  Answer  the  2d  of  3d  Section, 
Chapter  1st,  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  be  so  al- 
tered and  amended  as  to  read  as  follows:  "The 
General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  of  May, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1846,  in  the  town  of 
Petersburg,  Ya.,  and  thenceforward,  in  the  month 
of  April  or  May,  once  in  four  years  succes- 
sively, and  in  such  place  and  on  such  day  as  shall 
be  fixed  on  by  the  preceding  General  Confer- 
ence," etc. 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  485 

Resolved,  That  the  first  answer  in  the  same 
chapter  be  altered  by  striking  out  the  word 
''tweniy-one','  {uid  inserting  in  its  place  the  word 
''fourteen^'  so  as  to  entitle  each  Annual  Confer- 
ence to  one  delegate  for  every  fourteen  members. 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  three  be  ap- 
pointed, w^iose  duty  it  shall  be  to  prepare  and  re- 
port to  the  General  Conference  of  1846  a  revised 
copy  of  the  present  Discipline,  with  such  changes 
as  are  necessary  to  conform  it  to  the  organization 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

On  motion  of  William  A.  Smith  and  William 
Capers,  the  Report  w\as  accepted,  and  the  Publish- 
ing Committee  were  instructed  to  print  one  hun- 
dred copies  for  the  use  of  the  Convention. 

On  Saturday  morning,  the  17th  of  May,  on 
motion  of  John  Early,  of  the  Virginia  Conference, 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Organization  was 
taken  up,  and  the  Convention  resolved  to  act  on 
it  by  yeas  and  nays — sick  and  absent  members 
being  permitted  to  enter  their  votes  at  some  sub- 
sequent period  during  the  session. 

The  first  resolution  was  read,  and,  on  motion  of 
John  Early,  was  adopted,  William  Gunn,  George 
W.  Taylor,  and  John  C.  Harrison,  voting  in  the 
negative. 

The  remaining  resolutions  were  then  taken  up, 
and  adopted  without  a  dissenting  vote. 


486  Organization  of  ilie 

On  the  19th  of  May,  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Organization  was  taken  up  and  adopted 
as  a  whole,  only  George  W.  Taylor  find  John  C. 
Harrison  voting  in  the  negative. 

On  the  same  day  the  Committee  on  Organiza- 
tion reported  the  following  resolutions,  which  were 
unanimously  adopted : 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew 
be,  and  they  are  hereby,  respectfully  and  cordially 
requested  by  this  Convention  to  unite  with,  and 
become  regular  and  constitutional  Bishops  of,  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  upon  the  basis 
of  the  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  late 
General  Conference. 

"2.  Resolved,  That  should  any  portion  of  an 
Annual  Conference  on  the  line  of  separation,  not 
represented  in  this  Convention,  adhere  to  the 
Methodist  Ej)iscopal  Church,  South,  according  to 
the  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  at  the  late  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  elect  delegates  to  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Church  in  1846,  upon  the  basis 
of  representation  adopted  by  this  Convention, 
they  shall  be  accredited  as  members  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference. 

"  3.  Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  three  be  ap- 
pointed, whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  prepare,  and 
report  to  the  General  Conference  of  1846,  a  re- 
vised copy  of  the  present  Discipline,  with  such 
changes  as  are  necessary  to  conform  it  to  the  Or- 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  487 

ganization  of  the   Methodist   Episcopal   Church, 
South." 

Ill  reply  to  the  invitation  contained  in  the  first 
resolution,  the  following  letters  were  received  from 
Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew : 

"Dear  Brethren:— I  feel  myself  bound  in  good 
faith  to  carry  out  the  official  plan  of  Episcopal 
Visitations  as  settled  by  the  Bishops  in  New  York, 
and  published  in  the  official  papers  of  the  Church, 
until  the  session  of  the  first  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South;  from 
which  time  it  would  be  necessary  that  the  plan 
should  be  so  chan2;ed  as  to  be  accommodated  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  two  distinct  General  Con- 
ferences. That  wdien  such  Southern  General  Con- 
ference shall  be  held,  I  shall  feel  myself  fully  au- 
thorized by  the  Plan  of  Separation,  adopted  by  the 
General  Conference  of  1844,  to  unite  myself  with 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  if 
received  by  the  General  Conference  of  said  Church, 
to  exercise  the  functions  of  the  Episcopal  office 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  said  General  Conference. 

"Joshua  Soule. 

"Louisville,  Ky.,  May  19,  1845." 

"  Dear  Brethren  :  —  I  decidedly  approve  the 
course  which  the  Convention  has  taken  in  estab- 
lishing the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 


488  Organization  of  the 

believing  as  I  do  most  sincerely  that  it  will  tend, 
under  God's  blessing,  to  the  wider  spread  and  more 
efficient  propagation  of  the  gospel  of  the  grace 
of  God.  I  accept  the  invitation  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  act  as  one  of  the  Superintendents  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  pledge 
myself,  in  humble  dependence  upon  Divine  grace, 
to  use  my  best  efforts  to  promote  the  cause  of 
God  in  the  interesting  and  extensive  field  of  labor 
assigned  me. 

"May  the  blessing  of  God  be  upon  us  mutually 
in  our  laborious  field  of  action,  and  finally  may 
we  all,  with  our  several  charges,  be  gathered  to 
the  home  of  God  and  the  good  in  heaven! 

"Affectionately  your  brother  and  fellow-laborer, 

"James  0.  Andrew. 

"Louisville,  May,  1845." 

The  preparation  of  a  Pastoral  Address  had  been 
referred  to  a  special  committee,  and  on  the  19  th 
of  May  the  following  was  submitted  and  adopted : 

Louisville,  Ky.,  May  19,  1845. 

To  the  ministers  of  the  several  Annual  Confer- 
ences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  to  all  the  brethren  of  their  pastoral  oversight, 
the  Convention  of  said  Annual  Conferences  address 
this  letter,  with  Christian  salutation. 

We  gratefully  regard  it  matter  of  congratula- 


3L  E.  Church,  South,  489 

lion,  beloved  brethren,  for  which  our  thanks  should 
be  offered  at  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  have 
been  enabled  to  conduct  the  business  confided  to 
us  by  you  with  great  harmony,  and  except,  per- 
haps, some  inconsiderable  shades  of  difference  on 
points  of  minor  import,  with  unexampled  unanim- 
ity. Our  agreement  on  all  questions  of  impor- 
tance has  probably  been  as  perfect  as  the  weak- 
ness of  human  knowledge  might  allow  or  reason 
should  require. 

For  full  information  of  all  that  we  have  done, 
we  refer  you  to  the  Journal  of  our  proceedings 
and  the  documents  which  accompany  it,  particu- 
larly the  Reports  of  the  Committees  on  Organiza- 
tion and  on  Missions.  This  latter  interest  we 
have  made  the  subject  of  a  special  letter,  wishing 
to  bring  it  immediately  to  the  notice  of  all  our 
Churches  and  congregations,  (to  whom  we  have 
requested  the  letter  might  be  read,)  to  engage 
their  instant  liberality. 

We  made  it  a  point  of  early  inquiry,  in  the 
course  of  our  proceedings,  to  ascertain  wnth  what 
unanimity  the  Annual  Conferences  represented  by 
us,  and  the  entire  body  of  the  ministry  and  mem- 
bership within  their  general  bounds,  were  known 
to  have  concurred  in  sustaining  the  Declaration 
of  the  Southern  delegates  in  the  late  General  Con- 
ference, and  in  approving  of  the  plan  provided  by 
that  Conference  for  our  being  constituted  a  distinct 
21* 


490  Organization  of  the 

ecclesiastical  connection,  separate  from  tlie  North. 
The  Committee  on  Organization,  being  composed 
of  two  members  from  each  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, were  furnished  with  ample  means  of  obtain- 
ing satisfactory  infornmtion.  The  members  of  the 
committee  held  meetings  with  their  several  delega- 
tions apart,  and  on  a  comparison  of  their  se^^eral 
reports,  carefully  made,  it  was  found  that,  both  as 
to  the  members  of  the  Annual  Conferences  and 
the  local  ministry  and  membership  of  our  entire 
territory,  the  declaration  had  been  sustained,  and 
a  separate  organization  called  for,  by  as  great  a 
majority  as  ninety-five  to  five.  Nor  did  it  appear 
that  even  five  in  a  hundred  were  disposed  to  array 
themselves  against  their  brethren,  whose  interests 
were  identical  with  their  own,  but  that  part  were 
Northern  brethren  sojourning  in  our  borders,  and 
part  were  dwelling  in  sections  of  the  country  where 
the  questions  involved  did  not  materially  concern 
their  Christian  privileges,  or  those  of  the  slaves 
among  them.  So  great  appears  to  have  been  the 
unanimity  of  opinion  prevailing,  both  among  the 
pastors  and  the  people,  as  to  the  urgent  necessity 
of  the  great  measure  which  we  were  deputed  to 
effect,  by  organizing  on  the  basis  of  the  Disci- 
pline, and  the  plan  provided  by  the  late  General 
Conference,  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South. 

That  on  so  grave  a  question,  concerning  inter- 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  491 

ests  so  sacred,  and  affecting  so  numerous  a  people, 
spread  over  the  vast  extent  of  the  country  from 
Missouri  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  and  from  Virginia 
to  Texas,  there  should  be  found  some  who  dissent, 
is  what  we  could  not  but  expect.  But  that  the 
number  dissenting  should  have  been  so  small, 
compared  to  the  number  of  those  who  have  re- 
quired us  to  act,  is,  at  least  to  our  minds,  conclu- 
sive proof  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  this  action, 
as  affording  the  only  means  left  in  our  powxr  to 
preserve  the  Church  in  the  more  Southern  States 
from  hopeless  ruin.  Indeed,  the  action  of  the  late 
General  Conference,  without  the  intervention  of 
the  Declaration  of  the  Southern  delegates,  and 
the  Provisional  Plan  for  a  separate  Southern  Con- 
nection, must  have  immediately  broken  up  all  our 
missions  to  the  people  of  color,  and  subjected  their 
classes  in  most  of  the  Southern  circuits  to  ruinous 
deprivations.  Of  this  the  evidence  has  been  un- 
questionable. And  it  must  appear  to  you,  breth- 
ren, that  for  whatever  reason  so  great  an  evil  was 
threatened  for  a  cause  which  the  Southern  dele- 
gates did  nothing  to  produce,  but  resisted  in  the 
General  Conference,  that  evil  could  not  fail  of 
being  inflicted  with  redoubled  violence,  and  to  a 
still  greater  extent,  if  we,  having  a  platform  le- 
gally furnished  for  a  separate  organization,  should 
hesitate  a  moment  to  avail  ourselves  of  it.  It 
would  be,  in  effect,  to  put  ourselves,  in  relation  to 


492  Organization  of  the 

the  laws  and  policy  of  the  Southern  people,  in  the 
same  position  which  was  so  injuriously  offensive 
in  our  Northern  brethren,  while  it  could  not  be 
pleaded  in  extenuation  of  the  fault,  that  w^e  were 
Northern  men,  and  ignorant  of  the  state  of  affairs 
at  the  South.  Into  such  a  position  we  could  not 
possibly  put  ourselves ;  nor  can  we  think  that  rea- 
sonable men  would  require  us  to  do  so. 

We  avow,  brethren,  and  we  do  it  with  the  great- 
est solemnity,  that  while  we  have  thus  been  laid 
under  the  imperative  force  of  an  absolute  neces- 
sity to  organize  the  Southern  and  South-western 
Conferences  into  an  independent  ecclesiastical 
connection,  whose  jurisdiction  shall  be  exclusive 
of  all  interference  on  the  part  of  the  North,  we  do 
not  withdraw  from  the  true  Christian  and  catholic 
j)ale  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  And 
that  whilst  we  have  complained,  Avith  grievous 
cause,  of  the  power  of  the  majority  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  as  that  power  has  been  construed 
and  exercised,  w^e  have  not  complained,  and  have 
no  complaint,  against  the  Church  itself  The 
General  Conference,  or  a  majority  thereof,  is  not 
the  Church.  Nor  is  it  possible  that  that  should 
be  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  which  with- 
draws the  ministry  of  the  gospel  from  the  poor, 
and  turns  her  aside  from  her  calling  of  God  "to 
spread  Scripture  holiness  over  these  lands,"  in 
order  to  fulfill  some  other  errand,  no  matter  what. 


31.  U.  Church,  South.  493 

We  could  not  be  Methodists  at  all — as  we  have 
been  taught  what  Methodism  is — if,  with  our 
knowledge  of  its  nature,  its  aim,  its  constitution, 
its  discipline,  and  of  the  ruin  inevitable  to  the 
'work  of  the  ministry  in  most  of  the  Southern 
States,  if  not  in  all  of  them,  should  we  still  cleave 
to  a  Northern  jurisdiction ;  we  nevertheless  could 
not  be  persuaded  to  yield  the  gospel  for  a  juris- 
dictional affinity  with  brethren  who,  we  believe 
in  our  hearts,  cannot  govern  us  without  great  in- 
jury to  the  cause  of  Christ  in  most  parts  of  our 
work.  If  we  err,  it  is  the  spirit  of  Methodism 
which  prompts  ns  to  the  error.  We  "call  God 
for  a  record"  that,  as  far  as  we  know  our  hearts, 
we  intend  nothing,  we  desire  nothing,  we  do  noth- 
ing, having  any  other  object  or  aim  but  that  the 
gospel  may  be  preached,  without  let  or  hindrance, 
in  all  parts  of  our  country,  and  especially  to  the 
poor.  There  is  nothing  belonging  of  right  to  the 
Church — her  doctrines,  her  discipline,  her  econ- 
omy, her  usages,  her  efficiency — which  we  do  not 
cherish  in  our  inmost  hearts.  It  is  not  the  Church, 
not  any  thing  proper  to  the  Church,  in  her  char- 
acter as  Christ's  body,  and  consecrated  to  the  pro- 
motion of  his  cause  in  the  earth,  which  we  would 
disown,  or  depart  from,  or  oppose ;  but  only  such 
a  position  in  the  Church  as  some  of  her  sons 
would  force  us  into,  antagonistic  to  her  principles, 
her  policy,  and  her  calling  of  God.     Nor  yet  can 


494        *  Organization  of  the 

we  be  charged  with  any  factious  or  schismatic 
opposition  to  the  General  Conference,  for  we  have 
done  nothing,  and  mean  to  do  nothing,  not  author- 
ized by  express  enactment  of  that  body,  in  view 
of  the  very  emergency  which  compels  our  action. 
It  had  been  too  much  to  expect,  considering  the 
weakness  of  man,  that,  suddenly  roused  to  resist- 
ance as  the  Southern  Churches  were  by  the  un- 
looked-for action  in  the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew 
and  Brother  Harding,  there  should  not  in  some 
instances  have  escaped  expressions  of  resentment 
and  unkindness;  or  that,  put  to  the  defense  of 
the  majority  of  the  General  Conference,  where  the 
evil  complained  of  was  so  serious,  the  advocates 
of  that  majority  should  not  sometimes  have  ex- 
pressed themselves  in  terms  which  seemed  harsh 
and  unjust.  We  deeply  deplore  it,  and  pray  that 
for  the  time  to  come  such  exhibitions  of  a  morti- 
fying frailty  may  give  place  to  Christian  modera- 
tion. We  invoke  the  spirit  of  peace  and  holiness. 
That  brother  shall  be  esteemed  as  deserving  best 
who  shall  do  most  for  the  promotion  of  peace. 
Surely  this  is  a  time  of  all  others,  in  our  day, 
when  we  should  seek  and  pursue  peace.  A  con- 
tinuance of  strife  between  North  and  South  must 
prove  prejudicial  on  both  sides.  The  separation 
is  made — formally,  legally  made — and  let  peace 
ensue.  In  Christ's  name,  let  there  be  peace. 
Whatever  is  needful  to  be  done,  or  worth  the 


3L  E,  Church,  South.  495 

doing,  may  be  done  in  peace.  We  especially  ex- 
hort brethren  of  the  border  Conferences  and  so- 
cieties to  forbear  each  other  in  love,  and  labor 
after  peace.  Let  every  one  abide  by  the  law  of 
the  General  Conference  with  respect  to  our  bounds, 
and  choose  for  himself  with  Christian  temper,  and 
permit  others  to  choose  without  molestation,  be- 
tween North  and  South.  Our  chief  care  should 
be  to  maintain  "the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond 
of  peace."  Methodism  preserved  in  what  makes 
it  one  the  world  over — the  purity  of  its  doctrines, 
the  efficiency  of  its  discipline,  its  unworldliness, 
its  zeal  for  God,  its  self-devotion — is  of  infinitely 
greater  value  than  a  question  of  boundary  or  Gen- 
eral Conference  jurisdiction  merely. 

And  now,  brethren,  beseeching  you  to  receive 
the  word  of  exhortation  which  we  have  herein 
briefly  addressed  to  you,  and  humbly  invoking  the 
blessings  of  God  upon  you,  according  to  the  riches 
of  his  graoe  in  Christ  our  Lord,  praying  for  you, 
as  w^e  always  do,  that  you  may  abound  in  every 
good  work,  and  confiding  in  your  prayers  for  us, 
that  we  may  be  found  one  with  you  in  faith  and 
charity  at  the  appearing  of  Jesus  Christ,  we  take 
leave  of  you,  and  return  from  the  work  which  we 
have  now  fulfilled,  to  renew  our  labors  with  you 
and  among  you  in  the  Lord. 

James  0.  Andrew,  President. 

Thomas  0.  Summers,  Secretary. 


496  Organization  of  the 

Several  questions  of  importance,  to  whicli  we 
have  not  referred,  claimed  the  careful  considera- 
tion of  the  Convention,  among  which  the  mission- 
ary work  and  the  subject  of  education  were  prom- 
inent. 

On  the  19  th  of  May,  on  motion  of  Whitefoord 
Smith,  it  was 

''Resolvedy  That  we  devoutly  acknowledge  the 
superintending  providence  of  God  over  this  Con- 
vention, and  rejoice  in  the  harmony  which  has 
prevailed  in  all  its  deliberations  and  decisions." 

The  Convention  attracted  no  inconsiderable  at- 
tention during  its  session.  Distinguished  minis- 
ters from  all  parts  of  the  country  were  in  attend- 
ance, and  watched  its  progress  with  greatest 
anxiety.  The  large  and  spacious  audience-room 
and  galleries  of  the  old  Fourth- street  Church 
were  densely  crowded,  by  members  of  the  Church 
and  others,  who  listened  with  breathless  interest 
to  all  that  was  said.  Full  two  hours  were  spent 
in  the  reading  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Organization,  and  frequently  during  this  time  the 
silence  was  painful,  but  was  frequently  broken  with 
bursts  of  applause,  while  tears  of  joy  coursed  their 
way  down  many  a  cheek. 

After  the  close  of  the  Convention,  every  effort 
was  made  to  induce  the  Southern  Conferences  on 
the  Northern  border  to  adhere  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  (North),      It  was  affirmed  that 


M.  K  ChitrcL  South.  497 


the  Kentucky,  Missouri,  and  Holston  Conferences 
would  each,  by  a  hirge  nicijority,  decline  any  connec- 
tion with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

The  Kentucky  Conference  met  in  Frankfort, 
Ky.,  September  10,  1845.  Bishops  Soule  and 
Andrew  were  both  present.  On  the  first  day  of 
the  session  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions 
were  presented  and  adopted: 

"Whereas,  the  long- continued  agitation  and 
excitement  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  especially 
such  agitation  and  excitement  in  the  last  General 
Conference,  in  connection  with  the  civil  and  domes- 
tic relations  of  Bishop  Andrew,  as  the  owner  of 
slave  property,  by  inheritance  and  marriage,  as- 
sumed such  form  in  the  action  had  in  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew,  as  to  compel  the  Southern  and 
South-western  delegates  in  that  body  to  believe, 
and  formally  and  solemnly  to  declare,  that  a  state 
of  things  must  result  therefrom  which  would  ren- 
der impracticable  the  successful  prosecution  of  the 
objects  and  purposes  of  the  Christian  ministry  and 
Church -organization,  in  the  Annual  Conferences 
within  the  limits  of  the  slaveholding  States;  upon 
the  basis  of  which  declaration  the  General  Con- 
ference adopted  a  Provisional  Plan  of  Separation, 
in  view  of  Avhich  said  Conferences  might,  if  they 
found  it  necessary,  form  themselves  into  a  sepa- 
rate General  Conference  jurisdiction;  and  whereas, 


498  Organization  of  the 

said  Conferences,  acting  first  in  their  separate  Con- 
ference capacity,  as  distinct  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
and  then  collectively,  by  their  duly  appointed 
delegates  and  representatives,  in  General  Conven- 
tion assembled,  have  found  and  declared  such 
separation  necessary,  and  have  farther  declared  a 
final  dissolution,  in  fact  and  form,  of  the  jurisdic- 
tional connection  hitherto  existing  between  tlieni 
and  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  as  heretofore  constituted;  and 
have  organized  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  upon  the  unaltered  basis  of  the  doctrines 
and  discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  before  its  separation,  as  au- 
thorized by  the  General  Conference ;  and  whereas, 
said  Plan  of  Separation,  as  adopted  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  carried  out  by  the  late  Con- 
vention of  Southern  delegates  in  the  city  of 
Louisville,  Ky.,  and  also  recognized  by  the  entire 
Episcopacy  as  authoritative  and  of  binding  obli- 
gation in  the  whole  range  of  their  administra- 
tion, provides  that  Conferences  bordering  on  the 
line  of  division  between  the  two  Connections — 
North  and  South — shall  determine  by  vote  of  a 
majority  of  their  members  respectively,  to  which 
jurisdiction  they  will  adhere;  therefore,  in  view 
of  all  the  premises,  as  one  of  the  border  Confer- 
ences, and  subject  to  the  above-named  rule, 

''Resolved^  hi/  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  499 

of  the  Methodist  Ejmcopal  Church,  That  in  con- 
forming to  the  General  Conference  Plan  of  Sepa- 
ration, it  is  necessary  that  this  Conference  decide 
by  a  vote  of  a  majority  of  its  members  to  which 
Connection  of  the  Methodist  Ej^iscopal  Church  it 
will  adhere,  and  that  we  now  proceed  to  make 
such  decision. 

'^Resolved,  That  any  member  or  members  of  this 
Conference,  declining  to  adhere  to  that  Connection 
to  which  the  majority  shall  by  regular,  official  vote 
decide  to  adhere,  shall  be  regarded  as  entitled, 
agreeably  to  the  Plan  of  Separation,  to  hold  their 
relation  to  the  other  ecclesiastical  connection — 
North  or  South — as  the  case  may  be,  without 
blame  or  prejudice  of  any  kind,  unless  there  be 
grave  objections  to  the  moral  character  of  such 
member  or  members,  before  the  date  of  such 
formal  adherence. 

'^Resolved,  That  agreeably  to  the  provisions  of 
the  General  Conference  Plan  of  Separation,  and 
the  decisions  of  the  Episcopacy  with  regard  to  it, 
any  person  or  persons,  from  and  after  the  act  of 
non-concurrence  with  the  majority,  as  above,  can- 
not be  entitled  to  hold  membership,  or  claim  any 
of  the  rights  or  privileges  of  membership  in  this 
Conference. 

''Resolved,  That  as  a  Conference,  claiming  all 
the  rights,  powers,  and  privileges  of  an  Annual 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  we 


500  Organization  of  the 

adhere  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  that  all  our  proceedings,  records,  and  official 
acts  hereafter,  be  in  the  name  and  style  of  the 
Kentucky  Annual  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South. 

"Frankfort,  Ky.,  September  10,  1845." 

The  vote  on  the  fourth  resolution  was  taken  by 
ayes  and  noes,  and  stood,  ayes  77,  noes  6,  and 
four  of  the  six  votino;  in  the  neirative  afterward 
adhered  personally  to  the  M.  E.  Church,  South. 
The  action  of  the  Conference,  almost  unanimous, 
contributed  much  in  promoting  harmony  in  the 
Churches  throughout  Kentucky.  With  a  line  of 
border  of  several  hundred  miles,  there  was  but  a 
single  society  that  adhered  North,  while  in  nearly 
all  the  others  scarcely  a  voice  of  dissent  was  heard. 

In  Missouri,  Northern  Methodists  were  equally 
baffled  in  their  expectations.  The  resolutions 
adopted  by  the  Kentucky  Conference  were,  in 
substance,  introduced  and  adopted  by  the  Mis- 
souri, only  fourteen  voting  in  the  negative. 

The  Holston  Conference,  at  its  annual  meeting, 
adopted  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions, 
offered  by  Samuel  Patton,  with  only  one  vote  in 
the  negative;  the  person  voting  afterward  adhered 
to  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  and  took  work  in  the 
Conference  : 

"  Whereas,  the  long-continued  agitation  on  the 
subject  of  slavery  and  abolition  in  the  Methodist 


M,  E.  Church,  South,  501 

Episcopal  Church  did,  at  the  General  Conference 
of  said  Churchj  held  in  the  city  of  New  York,  in 
May,  1844,  result  in  the  adoption  of  certain  meas- 
ures by  that  body  which  seriously  threatened  a 
disruption  of  the  Church  ;  and  to  avert  this  calam- 
ity, said  General  Conference  did  devise  and  adopt 
a  plan  contemplating  the  peaceful  separation  of  the 
South  from  the  North ;  and  constituting  the  Con- 
ferences in  the  slaveholding  States  the  sole  judges 
of  the  necessity  for  such  separation ;  and,  whereas, 
the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the 
exercise  of  the  right  accorded  to  them  by  the 
General  Conference,  did,  by  their  representatives 
in  Convention  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  in  May  last,  de- 
cide that  separation  was  necessary,  and  proceeded 
to  organize  themselves  into  a  separate  and  distinct 
ecclesiastical  connection,  under  the  style  and  title 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  basing 
their  claim  to  a  legitimate  relation  to  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  upon 
their  unw^avering  adherence  to  the  Plan  of  Sep- 
aration adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of 
said  Church  in  1844,  and  their  devotion  to  the 
doctrines,  discipline,  and  usages  of  the  Church  as 
they  received  them  from  their  fathers. 

"And  as  the  Plan  of  Separation  provides  that 
the  Conferences  bordering  on  the  geographical  line 
of  separation  shall  decide  their  relation  by  the 
votes  of  the  majority — as  also  that  ministers  of 


502  Organization  of  the 

every  grade  shall  make  their  election  North  or 
South  without  censure — therefore, 

"  1.  Resolved^  That  we  now  proceed  to  deter- 
mine the  question  of  our  ecclesiastical  relation  by 
the  A^ote  of  the  Conference. 

"  2.  That  Ave,  the  members  of  the  Holston  Annual 
Conference,  claiming  all  the  rights,  powers,  and 
privileges  of  an  Annual  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  do 
hereby  make  our  election  with,  and  adhere  to,  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

'^'  3.  That  while  we  thus  declare  our  adherence 
to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  we  re- 
pudiate the  idea  of  secession  in  any  schismatic  or 
offensive  sense  of  the  phrase,  as  w^e  neither  give 
up  nor  surrender  any  thing  wdiich  we  have  re- 
ceived as  constituting  any  part  of  Methodism,  and 
adhere  to  the  Southern  ecclesiastical  organization, 
in  strict  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the 
Plan  of  Separation,  adopted  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  at  its 
session  in  New  York  in  May,  1844. 

"4.  That  w^e  are  satisfied  with  our  Book  of 
Discipline  as  it  is  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and 
every  other  vital  feature  of  Methodism,  as  re- 
corded in  that  Book ;  and  that  we  will  not  toler- 
ate any  changes  whatever,  except  such  verbal  or 
unimportant  alterations  as  may,  in  the  judgment 
of  the  General  Conference,  facilitate  the  work  in 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  503 

which  we  are  engaged,  and  promote  uniformity  and 
harmony  in  our  administration. 

"  5.  That  the  journals  of  our  present  session, 
as  well  as  all  our  ofiicial  business,  be  henceforth 
conformed  in  style  and  title  to  our  ecclesiastical 
relations. 

"  6.  That  it  is  our  desire  to  cultivate  and  main- 
tain fraternal  relations  wdth  our  brethren  of  the 
North.  And  we  do  most  sincerely  deprecate  the 
continuance  of  paper  warfare,  either  by  editors  or 
correspondents,  in  our  official  Church-papers,  and 
devoutly  pray  for  the  speedy  return  of  peace  and 
harmony  in  the  Church,  both  North  and  South. 

"  7.  That  the  Holston  Annual  Conference  most 
heartily  commend  the  course  of  our  beloved  Bish- 
ops, Soule  and  Andrew,  during  the  recent  agita- 
tions which  have  resulted  in  the  territorial  and  ju- 
risdictional separation  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  that  w^e  tender  them  our  thanks  for 
their  steady  adherence  to  principle  and  the  best 
interests  of  the  slave  population. 

"David  Adams." 

Similar  action  w^as  taken  by  all  the  border  Con- 
ferences in  the  slaveholding  States. 

At  the  several  Annual  Conferences  delegates 
were  elected,  as  provided  for  by  the  Convention, 
to  the  first  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  meet  on  the  first  day 
of  May,  1846,  in  Petersburg,  Virginia. 


504  Organization  of  the 


CHAPTER    VII. 

The  first  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South — Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  present — 
Bishop  Soule's  Communication — Referred  to  a  Commit- 
tee— Report  of  Committee — Dr.  Pierce  appointed  Fra- 
ternal Messenger  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  ISIeth- 
odist  Episcopal  Church — Dr.  Dixon  from  the  British 
Conference,  Dr.  Richey,  and  Revs.  J.  Ryerson  and  A. 
Green  from  the  Canada  Conference — Fraternal  intercourse 
with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  declined — 
Dr.  Pierce's  popularity  in  Pittsburgh — His  Report  to  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  in  1850 — The  Property  Question — The  Lawsuits — 

--Decisions  in  favor  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South — Position,  duty,  and  prospects  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South. 

The  first  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  met  in  Petersburg,  Vir- 
ginia, on  the  first  day  of  May,  1846. 

Bishop  Andrew  not  having  arrived,  and  Bishop 
Soule  not  having,  as  yet,  formally  adhered  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  the  delegates 
were  called  to  order  at  nine  o'clock  a.m.,  by  Dr. 
William  Winans,  of  Mississippi  Conference.     The 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  605 

Rev.  John  Early,  of  Virginia  Conference,  was 
elected  President  pro  tem;  whereupon  he  took  the 
chair,  and  General  Conference  was  opened — relig- 
ious service  conducted  by  Dr.  Winans. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Louisville  Convention 
being  absent,  the  President  called  on  the  Assistant 
Secretary  to  receive  and  read  the  certificates  of 
election,  as  presented  by  the  delegates. 

The  General  Conference  was  composed  of  the 
following  delegates,  viz. : 

Kentucky/  Conference. — Henry  B.  Bascom,  Hub- 
bard H.  Kavanaugh,  Benjamin  T.  Crouch,  Jona- 
than Stamper,  George  W.  Brush,  Edward  Steven- 
son, Thomas  N.  Ralston,  Charles  B.  Parsons,  John 
C.  Harrison,  Napoleon  B.  Lewis. 

Holston. — Samuel  Patton,  David  Fleming,  Tim- 
othy SuUins,  Thomas  K.  Catlett,  Elbert  F.  Se- 
vier. 

Missouri. — William  Patton,  Andrew  Monroe, 
Thomas  Wallace,  William  W.  Redman,  John  H. 
Linn,  Joseph  Boyle. 

Tennessee. — John  B.  McFerrin,  Robert  Paine, 
Fountain  E.  Pitts,  Alexander  L.  P.  Green, 
John  W.^  Hanner,  Edmund  W.  Sehon,  Samuel 
S.  Moody,  Frederick  G.  Ferguson,  Ambrose  F. 
Driskill. 

Virginia.  —  William   A.    Smith,   John    Early, 
Thomas  Crowder,  Abraham  Penn,  Leroy  M.  Lee, 
Henry  B.  Cowles,  Anthony  Dibrell. 
22 


506  Organization  of  the 

North  Carolina.  —  Hezekiah  G.  Leigh,  James 
Jamieson,  Samuel  S.  Bryant,  Peter  Doub. 

Indian  Mission. — Wesley  Browning,  Jerome  C. 
Berry  man. 

MemjMs. — Moses  Brock,  George  W.  D.  Harris, 
William  McMahon,  William  M.  McFerrin,  Arthur 
Davis,  John  T.  Baskerville. 

South  Carolina. — William  Capers,  Charles  Betts, 
Nicholas  Talley,  William  M.  Wightman,  Hugh.  A. 
C.  Walker,  Samuel  W.  Capers. 

Mississippi.  —  William  Winans,  Benjamin  M. 
Drake,  John  Lane,  Lewel  Campbell,  Green  M. 
Rogers,  Andrew  T.  M.  Fly,  John  G.  Jones. 

East  Texas. — Francis  Wilson. 

Texas.  —  Robert  Alexander,  Chauncey  Rich- 
ardson. 

Florida. — Alexander  Martin,  R.  H.  Luckey. 

Alabama. — Thomas  H.  Capers,  Elisha  Callaway, 
Eugene  V.  Levert,  Jesse  Boring,  Jefferson  Hamil- 
ton, Greenbury  Garrett,  Thomas  0.  Summers. 

Georgia. — Lovick  Pierce,  William  J.  Parks,  John 
W.  Glenn,  Samuel  Anthony,  James  E.  Evans, 
George  F.  Pierce,  Isaac  Boring,  Augustus  B. 
Longstreet.  ^ 

Arkansas. — John  F.  Truslow,  William  P.  Rat- 
clifFe,  Andrew  Hunter. 

Thomas  N.  Ralston,  of  the  Kentucky  Conference, 
was  elected  Secretary,  and  Thomas  0.  Summers, 
of  the  Alabama  Conference,  Assistant  Secretary. 


3L  E,  Church,  South,  507 

On  i\\Q  2d  of  May,  Bishop  Andrew  arrived  and 
took  the  chair. 

On  the  same  day  Bishop  Soule  presented  the 
following  communication  to  the  Conference : 

Petersburg,  May  2,  1846. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Brethren  : — I  consider  your 
body,  as  now  organized,  as  the  consummation  of  the 
organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  in  conformity  to  the  "  Plan  of  Separation," 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  M.  E. 
Church  in  1844.  It  is  therefore  in  strict  agree- 
ment with  the  provisions  of  that  body,  that  you 
are  vested  with  full  power  to  transact  all  business 
appropriate  to  a  Methodist  General  Conference. 

I  view  this  organization  as  having  been  com- 
menced in  the  "Declaration"  of  the  delegates  of 
the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  made 
at  New  York  in  1844 ;  and  as  having  advanced  in 
its  several  stages  in  the  "Protest" — "the  Plan 
of  Separation" — the  appointment  of  delegates  to 
the  Louisville  Convention — in  the  action  of  that 
body — in  the  subsequent  action  of  the  Annual 
Conferences,  approving  the  acts  of  their  delegates 
at  the  Convention,  and  in  the  appointment  of  dele- 
gates to  this  General  Conference. 

The  organization  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South, 
being  thus  completed  in  the  organization  of  the 
General  Conference  with  a  constitutional  Presi- 


508  Organization  of  the 

dent,  the  time  has  arrived  when  it  is  proper  for 
me  to  announce  my  position.  Sustaining  no  rela- 
tion to  one  Annual  Conference  which  I  did  not 
sustain  to  every  other,  and  considering  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  as  the  proper  judicatory  to  which 
my  communication  should  be  made,  I  have  de- 
clined making  this  announcement  until  the  present 
time.  And  now,  acting  with  strict  regard  to  the 
Plan  of  Separation,  and  under  a  solemn  conviction 
of  duty,  I  formally  declare  my  adherence  to  the 
Methodist  Episcoiml  Church,  South.  And  if  the 
Conference  receive  me  in  my  present  relation  to 
the  Church,  I  am  ready  to  serve  them  according 
to  the  best  of  my  ability.  In  conclusion,  I  in- 
dulge the  joyful  assurance  that  although  separated 
from  our  Northern  brethren  by  a  distinct  Confer- 
ence jurisdiction,  we  shall  never  cease  to  treat 
them  as  "  brethren  beloved,"  and  cultivate  those 
principles  and  affections  which  constitute  the  es- 
sential unity  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

(Signed)  Joshua  Soule. 

So  soon  as  the  above  communication  from  Bishop 
Soule  was  read,  Drs.  Bascom  and  Winans  were 
appointed  a  committee  to  respond  to  it,  and  on  the 
7th  of  May  submitted  the  following,  which  was 
unanimously  adopted : 

Petersburg,  Va.,  May  6,  1846. 
Whereas,  the  Rev.  Joshua  Soule,  D.D.,  senior 


31.  E,  Church,  South.  509 

Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  has 
addressed  a  communication  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  M.  E.  Churchj  South,  now  in  session 
in  Petersburg,  Ya.,  bearing  date  the  2d  inst.,  in 
which  he  formallij  declares  his  adherence  to  the  M. 
E.  Church,  South,  in  accordance  wnth  the  right  se- 
cured to  him  by  the  Plan  of  Separation,  adopted 
by  the  General  Conference  of  the  M.  Ev  Church 
at  its  last  session  in  1844  ;  therefore, 

Resolved,  (by  the  delegates  of  the  several  An- 
nual Conferences  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  in 
General  Conference  assembled,)  That,  fully  agree- 
ing wdth  Bishop  Soule,  as  it  regards  his  right  of 
action  in  the  premises,  by  authority  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1844,  we  cheerfully  and  unani- 
mously recognize  him  as  Bishop  of  the  M.  E. 
Church,  South,  Avith  all  the  constitutional  rights 
and  privileges  pertaining  to  his  office  as  Bishop 
of  the  M.  E.  Church.  H.  B.  Bascom, 

Wm.  Winans. 

It  does  not  belong  to  our  design  to  trace  the 
proceedings  of  the  General  Conference  of  1846. 
The  consideration  of  a  few  questions  that  came 
before  that  body,  lies  properly  within  the  range  of 
our  ^vork. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  now  di- 
vided into  two  separate  and  distinct  ecclesiastical 
jurisdictions,  known  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal 


510 


Organization  of  the 


Church  (North),  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.  Whether  the  North  or  the  South 
was  responsible  for  the  legislation  which  led  to 
this  result,  our  readers  must  determine  for  them- 
selves. Notwithstanding  the  division  between  the 
two  Methodisms,  there  were  many  things  in  com- 
mon. For  seventy  years  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  had  dispensed  its  blessings  all  over  our  land. 
From  a  small  beginning  it  had  grown  and  spread 
until  its  genial  rays  penetrated  every  portion  of  the 
country.  The  history  of  all  sections  was  one  his- 
tory. The  Churches,  at  whose  altars  thousands  had 
bowed  and  worshiped  God,  were  the  common  prop- 
erty of  Methodism.  We  preached  the  same  blessed 
gospel,  and  taught  the  same  doctrines  and  precepts. 
The  names  of  Wesley,  of  Coke,  of  Asbury,  and  Mc- 
Kendree,  were  alike  dear  to  every  Methodist  heart. 

Since  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  in 
the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  two  years  had  elapsed, 
and  on  both  sides  the  line  of  division  an  oppor- 
tunity had  been  afforded  for  calm  deliberation.  The 
ministers  and  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  had  proclaimed  to  the  world  that 
their  object  in  a  separate  organization  was  the 
promotion  of  Christianity ;  and  launching  their  bark 
upon  the  sea,  they  unfurled  the  white  flag  of  peace. 

Among  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Conven- 
tion at  the  time  of  the  organization  of  the  M.  E. 
Church,  South,  it  was 


I 


i 


til. 


Di, 
p.- 


31.  E.  C/mrch,  South.  511 

^'Resolved,  That  while  we  cannot  abandon  or  com- 
promise the  principles  of  action  upon  which  Ave 
proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South, 
nevertheless,  cherishing  a  sincere  desire  to  main- 
tain Christian  union  and  fraternal  intercourse  with 
the  Church,  North,  we  shall  always  be  ready 
kindly  and  respectfully  to  entertain  and  duly  and 
carefully  consider  any  proposition  or  plan  having 
for  its  object  the  union  of  the  two  great  bodies  in 
the  North  and  South,  whether  such  proposed  union 
be  jurisdictional  or  connectional." 

Desirous  that  all  strife  should  cease,  and  that 
the  two  branches  of  American  Methodism  should 
live  in  harmony,  and  thus  accomplish  more  readily 
their  mission  of  good,  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  1846, 
among  the  last  acts  of  that  body, 

''Resolved,  \>y  a  rising  and  unanimous  vote,  That 
Dr.  Lovick  Pierce  be,  and  is  hereby,  delegated  to 
visit  the  General  Conference  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
to  be  held  in  Pittsburgh,  May  1,  1848,  to  tender 
to  that  body  the  Christian  regards  and  fraternal 
salutations  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South.  In  case  of  the  in- 
ability of  Dr.  Pierce  to  attend  the  session  of  the 
aforesaid  Conference,  the  Bishops  are  respectfully 
requested  to  appoint  a  substitute." 

The  Bishops  were  "requested  to  prepare  an 
Address  on  behalf  of  the  Conference,  to  be  pre- 


512  Organisation  of  the 

sented  by  Dr.  Pierce  to  the  General  Conference 
of  the  M.  E.  Church  (North)  at  his  visit  to  that 
body  in  May,  1848." 

Dr.  Pierce  was  eminently  qualified  to  perform 
the  duties  with  which  he  was  intrusted.  He  was 
no  ordinary  man,  but  took  rank  with  the  most  dis- 
tinguished preachers  of  the  age.  Since  1802  he 
had  been  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Church,  and 
had  entered  the  South  Carolina  Conference  as  an 
itinerant  preacher  in  1804.  He  Avas  a  member  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1812,  and  had  fre- 
quently served  the  Church  since  then  in  its  high- 
est councils.  In  the  State  of  Georgia,  where  he 
resided,  no  man  exerted  a  more  potent  influence; 
and  in  the  Georgia  Conference,  of  which  he  was  a 
member,  no  preacher  was  more  beloved.  He  not 
only  brought  into  the  ministry  talents  of'  the  first 
order,  but  with  a  commanding  and  thrilling  elo- 
quence he  enforced  the  sublime  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity. To  these  he  added  a  sound  judgment,  a 
sweet  and  gentle  spirit,  and  a  heart  sanctified  by 
grace.  Such  was  the  man  selected  by  the  first 
General  Conference  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South, 
to  bear  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  M.  E. 
Church  (North)  its  "  Christian  regards  and  fra- 
ternal salutations."* 

*  Dr.  Pierce  is  still  living.  He  is  this  day  (March  24, 
1871,)  eighty-six  years  of  age.  His  mental  powers  are  un- 
impaired, and  he  is  able  to  preach  three  times  every  Sunday. 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  513 

That  the  mission  of  Dr.  Pierce  would  meet  with 
favor  in  the  body  to  which  he  was  sent  as  a  fra- 
ternal messenger,  no  member  of  the  General  Con- 
ference appointing  him  doubted  for  a  moment.  The 
majority  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  recog- 
nizing the  necessities  of  the  Church  in  the  South, 
had  met  the  emergency  in  a  spirit  of  enlarged  lib- 
erality, and  had  provided  for  an  amicable  division 
of  the  Church.  The  Northern  press,  it  is  true, 
had  indulged  in  words  of  bitterness  toward  the 
South,  but  time  had  been  given  for  reflection,  and 
the  cessation  of  hostilities  was  due  to  a  common 
Methodism  and  a  common  Christianity. 

It  was  eminently  proper,  too,  that  any  proposi- 
tion looking  to  the  existence  between  the  two 
Churches  of  fraternal  relations,  should  be  inaugu- 
rated by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
That  Church  had  established  a  separate  ecclesi- 
astical organization,  and  its  General  Conference 
was  the  first  to  convene. 

Two  years  would  elapse  before  the  meeting  of 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  (North),  and  if  any  ^- roots  of  bit- 
terness" remained,  they  would  have  time  to  die 
out. 

On  the  first  day  of  May,  1848,  the  General 

Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 

(North)  assembled  in  the  city  of  Pittsburgh.    We 

miss  from  the  body  many  of  the  men  who  were 

22* 


514  Organization  of  the 

leaders  in  1844;  but  John  A.  Collins,  John  P. 
Durbin,  Jesse  T.  Peck,  James  B.  Finley,  and 
Charles  Elliott,  are  present. 

Among  the  distinguished  ministers  from  abroad, 
the  name  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Dixon  deserves  to  be 
mentioned.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Wesleyan 
Conference  in  Great  Britain,  and  appointed  by 
that  body  as  their  representative  to  bear  to  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  (North)  their  fraternal  salutations.  Dr. 
Dixon  was  introduced  to  the  Conference,  and  "by 
general  consent  the  rules  of  the  Conference  were 
suspended,  and  the  credentials  of  Dr.  Dixon, 
representative  from  England,  were  presented  and 
read." 

Dr.  Dixon  submitted  the  following  Address  of 
the  British  Conference: 

To  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  North  America,  and  to  the  Ministers  in 
Conference  assembled. 

Very  Dear  Brethren  : — At  our  last  Annual  Con- 
ference held  in  Liverpool,  it  was  resolved,  That  as 
it  is  desirable  to  maintain  that  fraternal  and  Chris- 
tian affection  which  has  long  subsisted  between 
your  Church  and  the  British  Methodists,  a  repre- 
sentative should  be  appointed  from  among  us  to 
attend  your  next  General  Conference. 

The  Rev.  James  Dixon,  D.D.,  was  affectionately 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  515 

requested  to  undertake  this  important  mission,  and 
the  Rev.  Joseph  Stinson  was  desired  to  accompany 
him.  We  presume  that  Dr.  Dixon,  the  bearer  of 
this  letter,  is  not  altogether  unknown  to  you. 
Among  us  he  has  lived  for  many  years  in  the 
highest  esteem  and  veneration.  His  Christian 
simplicity,  the  meekness  of  his  spirit,  his  manly 
and  effective  eloquence  in  preaching  the  gospel,  as 
well  as  the  ability  and  fidelity  with  which  he  has 
maintained  our  ecclesiastical  polity,  have  pointed 
him  out  as  well  fitted  to  undertake  this  mission. 
The  British  Conference  has  deputed  him  to  visit 
you  with  the  utmost  confidence  in  his  integrity 
and  ability.  His  companion,  the  Rev.  Joseph 
Stinson,  also  visits  you  in  compliance  with  our 
earnest  desire,  and  with  our  entire  confidence  and 
growing  esteem. 

A  lengthened  epistle  is  rendered  unnecessary 
by  the  presence  among  you  of  our  representatives. 
They  will  convey  to  you  our  fraternal  salutations. 
We  respectfully  refer  you  to  them  for  any  such 
information  respecting  our  affairs  as  it  may  be 
agreeable  to  them  to  communicate. 

Our  earnest  prayer  is  that  the  Holy  Spirit  may 
pour  upon  your  approaching  assembly  his  choicest 
influences,  and  conduct  your  deliberations  to  such 
results  as  shall  promote  the  glory  of  Christ  and 
the  maintenance  and  spread  of  scriptural  holiness 
through  your  extended  country. 


516  Organization  of  the 

We  are,  dear  brethren,  in  behalf  of  the  British 
Conference,  Samuel  Jackson,  Pr^esident. 

Robert  Newton,  Secretary, 

After  a  brief  address  from  Dr.  Dixon,  on  mo- 
tion of  Jesse  T.  Peck,  it  was 

'^ Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  in  General  Confer- 
ence assembled,  1st.  That  the  cordial  thanks  of 
this  body  be  presented  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Dixon,  and 
through  him  to  the  Conference  he  represents,  for 
the  honor  conferred  on  us  in  his  presence  and 
address,  and  that  he  be  affectionately  invited  to 
take  such  part  in  our  deliberations  as  may  be 
agreeable  to  him.  2d.  That  the  communication 
from  the  British  Conference,  presented  by  him,  be 
referred  to  a  select  committee  of  three,  with  in- 
structions to  report  the  reply  of  the  Conference." 

The  committee  appointed  "to  respond  to  the 
communication  from  the  Wesley  an  Conference, 
England,"  consisted  of  J.  P.  Durbin,  C.  Elliott, 
and  C.  Pitman.  On  the  29th  of  May  the  com- 
mittee presented  the  following  report: 

To  the  British  Conference  of  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Church. 

Fathers  and  Brethren:  —  Nothing  gives  us 
more  pleasure  than  to  receive  your  fraternal  salu- 
tations at  a  session  of  our  General  Conference; 


31.  E,  Church,  South.  517 

and  this  pleasure  is  heightened  when  we  receive 
them  at  the  hands  and  in  the  words  of  one  of 
your  own  body.  It  affords  us  much  happiness  to 
bear  testimony  to  the  excellent  spirit  and  amiable 
deportment  of  your  representative,  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Dixon;  and  we  should  have  been  pleased  to  re- 
ceive with  him  the  Rev.  Joseph  Stinson,  whom 
you  requested  to  accompany  him.  We  avail  our- 
selves of  your  kind  and  confiding  reference  to  your 
representative,  and  consider  his  address  to  us  as 
the  voice  of  our  British  brethren. 

Through  him  you  express  the  continuance  of 
your  cordial  affection  toward  us,  and  your  earnest 
desire  for  our  increased  prosperity.  We  receive 
this  expression  as  in  some  degree  a  manifestation 
of  paternal  feeling  on  your  part,  wjiich  in  our 
judgment  has  somewhat  of  a  divine  blessing 
connected  with  it.  And,  in  return,  we  declare  the 
unabated  admiration  and  love  which  we  bear  your 
body,  and  our  desire  to  prove  ourselves  worthy 
of  our  sacred  spiritual  relations  with  you.  We 
have  good  hope  that  we  shall  be  able  to  do  so,  as 
well  from  our  own  knowledge  of  the  true  Wes- 
leyan  character  of  our  doctrines,  services,  and 
Discipline,  as  from  the  frank  and  clear  declaration 
of  your  representative,  that  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  appeared  to  him  to  exhibit  essen- 
tially pure  Wesleyan  Methodism. 

Your  representative  was  pleased  to  allude  to  the 


518  07'ganization  of  the 

unhappy  separation  of  our  beloved  Church,  grow- 
ing out  of  the  connection  of  one  of  our  Superin- 
tendents with  slavery,  prior  to  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1844;  and  expressed  his  deep  regret 
that  any  such  cause  of  separation  should  have 
arisen. 

The  true  cause  of  the  difficulty  in  our  beloved 
Zion  was  our  refusal  to  admit,  under  any  circum- 
stances, a  connection  of  our  Episcopacy  wdth 
slavery.  True,  your  honored  representative  took 
occasion  to  say  farther  (declaring  at  the  same 
time  that  he  expressed  the  sentiments  of  the  whole 
body  of  Methodists  in  England,  both  ministers 
and  people),  that  your  sympathies  w^ere  entirely 
on  the  side  of  liberty. 

On  our  part  we  would  say  that,  while  our  sym- 
pathies lie  in  the  same  direction,  and  it  is  our  pur- 
pose still,  as  heretofore,  to  bear  steadily  our  testi- 
mony against  the  great  evil  of  slavery,  and,  within 
our  legitimate  sphere  as  a  Church,  to  discounte- 
nance it  and  seek  its  removal,  we,  nevertheless, 
have  long  been  satisfied  that  our  brethren  in  other 
countries,  occupying  a  distant  stand -point,  and, 
therefore,  not  clearly  comprehending  the  compli- 
cated conditions  of  this  extremely  difficult  subject, 
have  not  been  able  to  do  full  justice  to  our  policy 
and  conduct  as  a  Church  in  regard  to  this  matter, 
they  may  have  thought  that  we  should  have  acted 
Tvith  more  directness  and  decision.     Feeling  our- 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  519 

selves  within  the  complications  of  this  great  evil, 
whose  effects  are  felt  throughout  the  sacred,  social, 
and  political  relations  of  this  country,  it  becomes 
us  to  act  prudently  and  in  the  fear  of  God,  and 
strive  to  consider  well,  and  settle  all  things  on  the 
Surest  and  best  foundations  for  the  promotion  of 
his  glory,  and  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the 
Church. 

Your  representative  took  occasion  to  express  to 
us  the  high  satisfaction  he  felt  in  visiting  our 
country,  and  conversing  w^ith  the  most  distin- 
guished and  intelligent  of  its  citizens,  both  in  the 
government  and  in  private  life.  And  we  acknowl- 
(sdge  a  sense  of  unfeigned  gratification  on  our  part, 
while  we  listened  to  his  frank  and  candid  avowal 
of  his  astonishment  at  the  mellowing  influences 
of  our  institutions,  in  inspiring  our  great  men  with 
striking  condescension  and  courtesy,  and  in  ele- 
vating the  lowly.  And  we  were  edified  with  the 
direct  and  fervent  prayers  which  he  offered  up  for 
our  government  and  nation  in  his  public  adminis- 
trations; while,  at  the  same  time,  he  as  frankly 
and  fervently  mingled  therewith  his  prayers  for 
your  beloved  queen,  your  government,  and  nation, 
which  found  a  warm  response  from  our  hearts. 
I  We  will  take  this  occasion  to  say,  we  have  great 
pleasure  in  observing  that  you  have  distinctly  as- 
sumed all  the  titles,  forms,  and  functions  of  a  true 
Church  of  Christ,  which,  indeed,  we  have  regarded 


520  Organization  of  the 

jou  always  to  have  been.  The  present  condition 
of  Protestantism  in  Europe,  and  particularly  in 
England,  renders  this  position  on  your  part  very 
important  to  the  interests  of  Christ's  Church. 

Your  systematic  and  efficient  organization,  not 
only  for  a  regular  and  abundant  supply  of  the 
word  of  life  to  the  people,  but  also  for  your  for- 
eign missionary  work,  commands  our  admiration 
and  moves  us  to  action.  We  behold  you  planting 
the  standard  of  the  cross  in  the  islands  of  every 
ocean,  and  on  the  coasts  and  plains  of  every  conti- 
nent, provoking  us  thereby  to  enter  more  largely 
into  the  same  great  work. 

It  gives  us  pleasure  to  assure  you  that  in  this 
respect  we  are  steadily  advancing.  Though  our 
movements  are  not  so  striking  as  yours,  yet  they 
are  vast  and  important.  Our  own  country 
stretches  westward  over  the  Rocky  Mountains  to 
the  Pacific  Ocean,  a  distance  of  thousands  of  miles, 
through  which  is  dispersed  a  sparse  population 
from  all  the  nations  of  Europe,  together  with  the 
numerous  and  populous  tribes  of  the  native  In- 
dians of  its  unbroken  forests. 

These  elements  of  vast  empires  must  be  taught 
the  principles,  imbued  with  the  spirit,  and  pro- 
vided with  the  institutions,  of  our  holy  Christian- 
ity. This  immense  domain  is  our  domestic  field 
of  missionary  operations,  and  it  is  a  cause  of  de- 
vout thankfulness  to  Grod  that  we  see  it  yearly 


M,  E,  Church,  South.  521 

blossoming  as  the  rose.  As  a  specimen,  we  men- 
tion our  German  missions.  Hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  native  Germans  flock  to  our  land,  bringing 
with  them  the  cold  and  heartless  Rationalism,  or 
ignorant  and  fanatical  Roman  Catholicism,  of  Ger- 
many. In  their  new  and  strange  circumstances 
they  become  easily  accessible  to  us,  and  within 
ten  years  past,  five  thousand  have  been  converted 
to  God,  of  whom  about  two  thousand  Avere  Ro- 
man Catholics.  These  have  been  formed  into 
regular  societies,  which  have  been  reduced  to  reg- 
ular circuits,  stations,  and  Districts,  and  well  ap- 
pointed by  German  preachers,  amounting  in  all  to 
eighty-five.  The  work  is  still  rapidly  advancing, 
and  we  are  taking  measures  to  insure  its  increase 
and  purity.  Arrangements  are  being  made  to 
compile  and  publish  an  Evangelical  Commentary 
on  the  New  Testament,  also  Sunday-school  books 
for  our  German  Sunday-schools,  and  to  translate 
additional  works  from  our  General  Catalogue  into 
German.  Already  this  great  light,  kindled  among 
the  natives  of  Germany  now  residing  in  this  coun- 
try, is  beginning  to  illumine  their  fatherland,  by 
means  of  letters,  books,  and  visitors  from  the 
members  of  this  new  evangelical  German  Church. 
God  is  sending  Germany  to  us  to  be  evangelized; 
and  indeed,  in  some  degree,  all  the  nations  of  Eu- 
rope; and  we  doubt  not  but  the  reaction  of  this 
great  domestic  missionary  work  among  us  will  be 


522  Organization  of  the 

great  and  salutary  on  the  Old  World.  But  we 
are  not  content  within  this  domestic  field — we  are 
extending  our  missionary  operations  to  Oregon, 
California,  portions  of  Mexico,  and  to  China.  And, 
aided  by  the  bright  example  of  your  brilliant  mis- 
sionary resources  and  operations,  we  hope  shortly 
to  fill  up  the  measure  of  the  missionary  work 
w^hich  God  may  be  pleased  to  assign  us. 

And  w^hile  we  are  thus  endeavoring  to  extend 
the  kingdom  of  God  wider  in  the  world,  we  are 
not  unmindful  of  the  population  he  hath  given  us 
at  home.  And  believing  that  education  is  one 
great  means  of  advancing  and  fortifying  his  king- 
dom among  us,  we  have,  wdthin  the  last  twenty 
years,  given  much  attention  to  this  matter.  While 
we  have  not  thought  it  best  to  have  theological 
seminaries  proper,  and  have  judged  that  a  proper 
course  of  study  which  our  young  men  are  required 
to  accomplish  in  four  years,  while  they  are  actively 
engaged  in  preaching  the  gospel  and  taking  care 
of  souls,  will  make  them  able  ministers  of  the 
New  Testament,  Ave  have  been  careful  to  provide 
universities,  colleges,  and  academies  for  the  edu- 
cation of  our  own  people,  as  well  as  the  public  at 
large.  And  in  this  department  of  our  w^ork  we 
may  congratulate  ourselves  as  having  been  suc- 
cessful. We  have  now  seven  colleges  fully  or- 
ganized, and  affording  academic  education  to 
thousands  of  our  younger  sons,  and  also  of  our 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  523 

dcaughters,  who  are  thus  iDrepared  to  dilTust  the 
essence  and  odor  of  piety  in  the  more  private  and 
sacred  walks  of  life. 

'  We  take  pleasure  in  naming,  as  additional  means 
of  education,  the  vast  capital  and  appliances  of 
our  General  Book  Concern,  and  the  numerous  ex- 
cellent w^orks  which  issue  from  it.  In  the  Gen- 
eral Catalogue  there  are  two  hundred  and  seventy- 
five  distinct  works,  some  of  them  extending  to  six 
heavy  volumes.  In  the  list  are  commentaries, 
dictionaries,  Church-histories,  and  many  excellent 
ecclesiastical  and  theological  works.  We  should 
be  wanting  in  honor  did  we  not  acknowledge  that 
many  of  them  have  been  derived  from  your  Con- 
nection. Our  Sunday-school  publications  also 
are  very  numerous ;  the  Youth's  Library  already 
amounts  to  four  hundred  and  eleven  volumes,  and 
our  Tract  publications  to  three  hundred  and  sixty. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  state  the  many  thousands 
of  these  works  that  are  annually  distributed 
throughout  our  vast  country. 

Our  periodical  literature  is  also  immense.  The 
weekly  issue  from  our  various  presses  in  newspa- 
per form  amount  to  not  less  than  forty-five  thou- 
sand copies.  We  have  one  monthly  magazine, 
entitled  "The  Ladies'  Repository,"  wdth  about 
seven  thousand  subscribers.  It  is  conducted  with 
taste  and  ability,  and  the  mechanical  execution 
and  embellishments  are  very  creditable. 


524  Organization  of  the 

Our  Quarterly  Review  is  conducted  with  ability, 
and  afFords  a  medium  of  presenting  to  our  ministers 
and  principal  friends  the  graver  topics  in  theology, 
and  in  general  science  and  literature.  Our  children 
in  our  thousands  of  Sunday-schools  are  supplied, 
semi-monthly,  with  the  Sunday-school  Advocate, 
in  quarto  form.  It  has  now  eighty  thousand  sub- 
scribers, and  is  rapidly  advancing  to  one  hundred 
thousand.  We  have  also  a  monthly  Missionary 
Advocate,  with  a  subscription -list  of  at  least 
twenty  thousand,  which  distributes  throughout 
our  Church  general  missionary  intelligence  from 
various  parts  of  the  world.  We  trust  that  these 
vast  issues  of  books  and  periodicals  from  our  va- 
rious presses  and  agencies  are  deeply  imbued 
with  the  doctrines  and  spirit  of  genuine  Chris- 
tianity. 

We  did  not  think  it  necessary  in  the  earlier 
part  of  this  address  to  allude  to  the  only  little 
matter  of  uneasiness  between  us ;  that  is,  the  lib- 
erty which  some  of  our  ministers  (we  say  8ome^ 
although  we  are  advised  of  but  one  case)  have 
taken  to  visit  England,  and  make  appointments  for 
preaching  and  public  services  without  the  regular 
approbation  or  concurrence  of  the  proper  authori- 
ties among  you.  It  gives  us  pleasure  to  testify 
our  disapprobation  of  this  course,  and  to  say  it 
has  never  been  done  with  our  sanction;  and  that 
we  will  see  that  hereafter  the  proper  restraint  is 


3L  E.  Church,  South,  525 

put  upon  all  our  traveling  ministers  in  this  matter. 
As  it  respects  local  preachers,  we  have  no  direct 
nuthority  in  the  premises;  but  we  w^ish  distinctly 
to  declare  our  disapprobation  of  any  conduct  on 
their  part,  as  preachers  in  your  country,  which 
has  not  your  special  sanction,  and  is  not  under 
your  direction. 

We  have  been  gratified  to  observe  that  the 
cause  of  temperance,  on  the  principle  of  total  ab- 
stinence from  intoxicating  liquors,  is  attracting 
attention  in  England;  and  w^e  respectfully  ask 
your  attention  to  it,  and  your  kind  consideration 
of  it,  as  intimately  connected  with  the  best  inter- 
ests of  society  in  general,  and  greatly  conducive 
to  the  success  of  the  gospel.  Such  is  our  expe- 
rience in  America,  particularly  when  the  Church 
enters  heartily  into  the  cause. 

In  conclusion,  it  gives  us  great  pleasure  to  renew 
to  you  the  expression  of  our  fraternal  affection ;  and 
to  say  that  it  is  now  in  our  minds,  at  some  suita- 
ble time  hereafter,  to  reciprocate  the  favor  you 
have  done  us  by  sending  us  your  excellent  repre- 
sentative to  refresh  our  spirits  by  his  holy  minis- 
try, and  to  edify  us  by  your  Christian  fellowship 
which  we  enjoy  through  him. 

Wishing  you  all  prosperity  and  peace  as  a 
Church,  through  the  abounding  grace  of  God  in 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  we  are,  dear  fathers  and 
brethren,  yours  in  the  bonds  of  the  gospel. 


526  Organization  of  the 

It  is  gratifying  to  know  that  every  courtesy 
due  the  distinguished  representative  of  the  British 
Conference  was  shown  to  him  during  his  stay  in 
Pittsburgh.  On  the  8th  of  May  he  was  requested, 
by  a  resolution  of  the  General  Conference,  to 
preach  a  sermon  to  the  Conference  on  Wednesday, 
the  10th  of  May,  at  half-past  10  o'clock  a.m.;  and 
on  Thursday,  the  11th,  the  order  of  the  day  was 
suspended,  that  the  following  resolution  might  be 
offered : 

''Resolved,  That  the  cordial  thanks  of  this  Gen- 
eral Conference  be  presented  to  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Dixon  for  his  excellent  and  evangelical  sermon, 
and  that  we  respectfully  and  earnestly  request 
Rev.  Dr.  Dixon  to  furnish  the  substance  of  the 
sermon  he  delivered  before  the  General  Conference 
yesterday  for  publication,  and  that  he  expand  his 
remarks  in  any  part  of  it  as  he  may  judge  proper, 
and  write  out  his  last  proposition,  of  which  he 
only  presented  us  with  the  outline." 

"The  Methodists  in  Upper  Canada  were  for- 
merly under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  but,  from 
political  considerations  chiefly,  it  was  deemed  ad- 
visable that  they  should  be  transferred  to  the  ju- 
risdiction of  the  British  Conference,"  which  was 
done  in  1830. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Richey  and  Rev.  Messrs.  Ryer- 
son  and  Green,  meml^ers  of  the  Wesleyan  Meth- 


31.  E,  Church,  South.  527 

odist  Conference  in  Canada,  were  delegated  to 
bear  the  fraternal  greetings  of  that  body  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  (North).  On  the 
9th  of  May  they  presented  the  following  address: 

To  the  Bishops  and  Members  of  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Ej^iscopal  Church. 

Reverend  Fathers  and  Brethren: — With  un- 
diminished feelings  of  regard  for  our  brethren  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  general,  and 
particularly  for  the  Bishops  and  ministers  who 
labor  in  word  and  doctrine  within  its  pale,  Ave 
avail  ourselves  of  the  occasion  of  the  assembling 
of  the  General  Conference  to  renew  the  testimony 
of  our  esteem  and  affection.  ^ 

We  are  aware  that  very  important  topics  were 
discussed  at  your  last  General  Conference,  and 
since  that  period  some  of  these  subjects  have  en- 
grossed the  attention  and  excited  the  feelings  of 
ministers  and  people  throughout  your  extensive 
country.  In  the  serious  difficulties  by  which  you 
have  been  surrounded,  and  the  troubles  in  which 
you  have  been  involved,  we  have  felt  the  deepest 
concern,  and  cherished  the  liveliest  sympathy.  But 
"God  is  the  hope  of  Israel,  the  Saviour  thereof 
in  time  of  trouble."  That  he  may  overrule  all 
things  for  his  own  glory,  and  the  ultimate  benefit 
and  salvation  of  your  venerated  and  beloved 
Church,  is  our  devout  and  earnest  prayer. 


528  Organization  of  the 

Your  success  in  the  midst  of  these  trials  and 
conflicts  awakens  our  gratitude  and  joy.  We 
notice  with  unmixed  pleasure  your  extensive  ope- 
rations in  the  diffusion  of  education,  in  the  circu- 
lation of  useful  and  religious  books  and  tracts,  in 
the  establishment  and  support  of  Sunday-schools, 
and  in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  as  far  as  your 
population  extends.  We  rejoice  to  learn  that  the 
great  Head  of  the  Church  has  poured  out  his 
Holy  Spirit  on  various  parts  of  your  great  field 
of  labor,  and  that  thousands  by  your  instrumen- 
tality have  been  brought  to  the  knowledge  of 
Christ.  May  these  tokens  of  Divine  presence  and 
favor  be  perpetuated  among  you  to  the  latest  gen- 
eration !      *' 

The  Wesley  an  Church  in  Canada,  as  in  the 
United  States,  has  had  its  times  of  sorrow  and 
seasons  of  joy.  Since  the  year  1840,  we  have 
had  to  lament  over  serious  difficulties  existing 
between  ourselves  and  the  English  Conference. 
Happily,  upon  a  review  of  the  w^hole,  both  parties 
were  led  to  the  conclusion  that  misapprehension 
had  existed  on  several  points,  and  that  events 
which  gave  rise  to  differences  in  former  years  no 
longer  existed.  To  the  English  Conference  of 
1846  we  sent  our  esteemed  brethren,  the  Hev. 
Messrs.  Ryerson  and  Green,  as  our  representa- 
tives, that,  if  practicable,  peace  and  unity  might 
be  restored  and  promoted  between  the  tw^o  legiti- 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  529 

mate  Wesleyan  bodies  in  Westei*n  Canada.  Under 
the  peculiar  guidance  of  Divine  Providence,  their 
mission  was  signally  successful.  Our  English 
brethren  have  promptly  joined  us  in  mutual  agree- 
ment to  bury  in  oblivion  the  record  of  the  painful 
past,  to  reunite  our  separated  bodies  on  terms 
generous  and  just,  and  to  go  forward  as  a  united 
host  in  the  defense  and  maintenance  of  the  glo- 
rious gospel  of  the  ever -blessed  God.  We  are 
certain  your  earnest  prayers  will  spontaneously 
blend  with  our  own,  that  this  union  may  be  per- 
petual. 

We  are  still  endeavoring  to  assist  in  promoting 
the  great  object  of  useful  and  religious  education 
in  this  country.  Our  college  has  its  embarrass- 
ments, but  we  are  gradually  surmounting  them. 
Our  Book  Room  is  in  a  state  of  efficiency.  The 
mission  work  among  us  is  increasing,  and  the 
funds  are  increasing  with  the  work.  Our  other 
connectional  funds  are  also  on  the  advance,  through 
the  liberality  of  our  people.  Our  united  bodies 
make  the  statistics  of  the  Connection  in  Western 
Canada  as  follows:  Circuits  and  missions,  98; 
preachers,  189;  members,  24,882. 

Considering  the  hostilities  we  have  had  to  com- 
bat in  past  years,  we  are  truly  thankful  that  our 
situation  at  present  is  so  favorable,  and  shall  enter 
upon  the  duties  of  another  year  high  in  hope  and 
full  of  expectation  that  the  blessing  of  the  great 
23 


530  Of^g animation  of  the 

Head  of  the  Church  will  be  upon  us  and  our  be- 
loved people,  prospering  us  more  and  more  in  our 
work  of  faith  and  labor  of  love. 

We  have  appointed  our  esteemed  brethren,  the 
E-ev.  Messrs.  M.  Richey,  A.M.,  J.  Eyerson,  and 
Anson  Green,  as  our  representatives  to  your  Gen- 
eral Conference,  to  whom  we  refer  you  for  any 
additional  information  respecting  us  which  you 
may  desire. 

Signed  by  order  and  on  behalf  of  the  Confer- 
ence of  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Church  in  Can- 
ada, this  16th  day  of  June,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty- 
seven.  R.  Alder,  President, 

James  Musgrove,  Secretary, 

The  same  committee  appointed  to  respond  to 
the  Address  from  the  British  Conference,  was 
intrusted  wdth  the  duty  of  preparing  a  response 
to  the  brethren  in  Canada,  and  on  the  29  th  of  May 
they  presented  the  following : 

Dear  Brethren  : — We  have  received  your  very 
kind  and  agreeable  address  by  the  hands  of  your 
w^orthy  and  esteemed  representatives,  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Bichey,  D.D.,  Rev.  J.  Ryerson,  and  Rev.  A. 
Green,  conveying  to  us  your  warm  Christian  salu- 
tations. Your  excellent  representatives  also  took 
occasion  to  add  thereto  farther  expressions  of  your 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  531 


fmternal  regards,  and  of  your  personal  esteem  and 
affection  for  us.  We  accept  all  these  expressions 
as  tokens  of  your  sincere  love  toward  us,  and  of 
your  earnest  desire  to  cultivate  the  same  in  future. 
Allow  us,  dear  brethren,  to  reciprocate  from  our 
hearts  the  affection  you  bear  us,  and  to  render 
thanks  to  God  for  the  manifestations  of  his  good- 
ness to  you,  especially  in  restoring  peace  and  con- 
cord between  you  and  our  common  parent  Connec- 
tion in  England.  We  rejoice  that  you  have  found 
in  the  British  Connection,  and  we  believe  you  will 
continue  to  find  in  it,  counsel  and  support;  and 
that,  aided  by  its  general  and  liberal  fostering 
care,  your  own  industry  and  enterprises  will  be 
abundantly  fruitful. 

In  your  address  you  allude  to  the  interests  of 
education  among  you,  and  of  the  prosperity  of 
your  Book  Concern,  which  we  regard  as  a  spirit- 
ual handmaid  of  secular  learning.  It  is  a  matter 
of  real  joy  to  us  that  j^ou  have  a  fair  prospect  of 
permanently  endowing  a  college  for  the  liberal 
education  of  your  youth,  and  the  youth  of  your 
province,  under  the  salutary  influence  of  your 
own  Church.  It  is  wise  and  good  to  take  care  of 
the  people  born  to  you  in  the  bosom  of  your  com- 
munity, and  also  to  expand  and  advance  the  king- 
dom of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  midst  of  the 
world  by  means  of  a  healthy,  sanctified  education; 
an  education  sound  in  its  elements,  and  made  vital 


532  Organization  of  the 

by  the  personal  spirituality  of  the  professors  and 
teachers  who  dispense  it. 

Your  address  also,  as  did  your  representatives, 
alluded  to  the  difficulties  which  for  the  last  four 
years  have  distressed  our  Zion;  and  although  it  ap- 
peared to  us  that  they  did  not  fully  comprehend 
them,  yet  they  kindly  and  properly  expressed  a 
hope  that  these  troubles  would  pass  away.  They 
encouraged  us  by  setting  forth  your  ow^n  case  as 
one  of  long-continued  and  great  difficulty,  yet  hap- 
pily adjusted  at  last.  We  also  abide  in  hope  that 
these  difficulties  may  pass  away  from  us,  and  our 
Zion  be  as  tranquil  and  prosperous  as  formerly. 
But  we  do  not  now  see  the  end,  and  have  some 
apprehensions,  as  it  is  believed  that  both  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  claim  that  essential 
principles  of  morals  and  policy  are  involved.  But 
in  the  Lord  we  put  our  trust. 

It  gives  us  great  pleasure  to  have  no  occasion 
for  a  lengthy  epistle  to  you,  on  account  of  any 
misunderstandings  between  us.  We  are  of  one 
heart  and  one  mind,  and  rejoice  mutually  in  each 
other's  prosperity.  Let  us  continue  to  be  of  the 
same  mind,  and  to  walk  by  the  same  rule.  It  is 
now  in  our  minds  to  send  to  you  one  of  our  own 
body,  at  a  suitable  time,  to  express  to  you,  face 
to  face,  the  love  we  bear  you,  and  our  fellowship 
with  you. 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  533 

And  now,  dear  brethren,  we  commend  you  to 
God,  and  to  the  word  of  his  grace;  and  we  renew 
to  you  the  assurance  of  our  fraternal  affection  in 
Jesus  Christ,  our  common  Lord  and  Saviour. 

These  gentlemen  were  invited  to  address  the  Con- 
ference. Indeed,  the  same  courtesy  that  was 
shown  to  Dr.  Dixon  was  also  shown  to  Dr.  Richey, 
and  Messrs.  Ryerson  and  Green. 

It  was  not  only  due  these  distinguished  stran- 
gers, and  the  branches  of  Methodism  they  repre- 
sented, but  also  the  body  to  whom  they  were  dele- 
gated to  bear  the  Christian  love  of  their  respective 
Churches,  to  extend  to  them  every  courtesy  and 
attention.  The  responses  to  the  British  Confer- 
ence and  the  Wesleyan  Church  in  Canada  are 
replete  with  Christian  sentiments  that  do  honor 
to  the  Methodism  from  whence  they  emanated. 

On  the  same  day  in  which  Dr.  Dixon  pre- 
sented the  communication  from  the  British  Con- 
ference, the  Bev.  Lovick  Pierce,  D.D.,  the  ac- 
credited representative  of  the  Methodist  Ej^isco- 
pal  Church,  South,  presented  the  following  com- 
munication : 

To  the  Bishops  and  Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  General  Conference  assembled : 

~  Beverend  and  Dear  Brethren: — The  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 


534,  Organization  of  the 

South,  appointed  me  as  their  delegate  to  beai  to 
you  the  Christian  salutations  of  the  Church,  South, 
and  to  assure  you  that  they  sincerely  desire  that 
the  two  great  bodies  of  Wesleyan  Methodists, 
North  and  South,  should  maintain  at  all  times  a 
warm,  confiding,  and  brotherly,  fraternal  relation 
to  each  other ;  and  that  through  me  they  make 
this  offer  to  you,  and  A^ery  ardently  desire  that 
you,  on  your  part,  will  accept  the  offer  in  the  same 
spirit  of  brotherly  love  and  kindness. 

The  a-eceptance  or  rejection  of  this  proposition, 
made  by  your  Southern  brethren,  is  entirely  at 
your  disposal;  and  as  my  situation  is  one  of  pain- 
ful solicitude  until  this  question  is  decided,  you 
will  allow  me  to  beg  your  earliest  attention  to  it 

And  I  would  farther  say,  that  your  reply  to  this 
communication  will  most  gratify  me  if  it  is  made 
officially  in  the  form  of  resolutions. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  yours 
in  the  unity  of  Wesleyan  Methodism, 

L.  Pierce, 
Delegate  from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South. 

Pittsburgh,  May  3, 1848. 

The  communication  of  Dr.  Pierce  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church. 
This  committee  was  a  large  one,  consisting  of  two 
members  from  each  delegation,  and  of  which  the 
Rev.  George  Peck,  of  the  New  York  Conference, 


31.  E,  Church,  South,     ,  535 

was  the  Chairman.  On  the  5th  of  May  the  com- 
mittee presented  the  following  report : 

" '  That  they  have  had  under  consideration  the 
letter  from  the  E-ev.  Dr.  Pierce,  and  that  they 
recommend  to  the  General  Conference  the  adop- 
tion of  the  following  preamble  and  resolution : 

"'Whereas,  a  letter  from  Rev.  L.  Pierce,  D.D., 
delegate  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  proposing  fraternal  relations  between  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  has  been  presented  to 
this  Conference ;  and  whereas,  there  are  serious 
questions  and  difficulties  existing  between  the  two 
bodies ;  therefore, 

^''Resolved,  That  while  we  tender  to  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Pierce  all  personal  courtesies,  and  invite  him  to 
attend  our  sessions,  this  General  Conference  does 
not  consider  it  proper,  at  present,  to  enter  into 
fraternal  relations  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.  George  Peck,  Chairman^ 

"Moved  to  adopt  the  report. 

"John  A.  Collins  moved  to  amend,  so  that  the 
consideration  of  the  report  be  delayed  until  the 
questions  of  division  of  Church-property  and  of 
the  division  line  are  settled. 

"Voted  to  lay  Brother  Collins's  motion  to  amend 
on  the  table. 

"J.  Holdich  moved  the  following  substitute  to 
the  original  resolution  in  the  report : 


636  Organizaiion  of  the 

"^1.  Resolved^  That  this  General  Conference 
invite  Dr.  Pierce,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  to  take  a  seat  in  the  house  and 
address  us  on  the  subject  of  his  mission. 

"^2.  Resolved^  That  as  to  fraternization,  we  are 
not  prepared  at  present  to  give  any  decision,  but 
shall  leave  that  point  open  to  farther  consideration, 
under  whatever  light  or  information  we  may  re- 
ceive bearing  upon  that  question.' 

"J.  D.  Bridge  moved  to  lay  Brother  Holdich's 
substitute  on  the  table.     Carried. 

"Dr.  Tomlinson  moved  to  amend  the  report  by 
adding  the  following,  namely:  ^Provided,  how- 
ever, that  nothing  in  this  resolution  shall  be  so 
construed  as  to  operate  as  a  bar  to  any  proposition 
from  Dr.  Pierce,  or  any  other  representative  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  toward 
the  settlement  of  existing  difficulties  between  that 
body  and  this.' 

"Dr.  Durbin  moved  as  a  substitute  to  Dr.  Tom- 
linson's  amendment  as  follows,  namely: 

''^Resolved,  That  in  so  far  as  Dr.  Pierce  may 
come  with  authority  to  adjust  the  difficulties  be- 
tween the  two  bodies,  we  will  cordially  confer 
with  him.' 

"Dr.  Durbin's  substitute  failed,  and  the  ques- 
tion recurred  on  Dr.  Tomlinson's  amendment. 

"Brother  Walker  moved  to  lay  the  amendment 
on  the  table.     Not  carried. 


M.  E,  Church,  South,  537 

"Moved  by  Brother  Holmes,  that  the  vote  be 
taken  by  yeas  and  nays.     Carried. 

"Moved  by  Brother  Collins  to  amend,  by  in- 
serting instead  of  Ho  attend  our  sessions,'  to 
take  a  seat  Avithin  the  bar.  On  motion,  laid  on 
the  table. 

"  The  yeas  and  nays  were  called,  and  the  vote 
stood,  yeas  147 — no  nays:  three  absent.  So  the 
report,  as  amended,  was  unanimously  adopted." 

On  the  9th  of  May  the  following  letter,  replete 
with  manly  and  Christian  sentiments,  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  Conference  by  Dr.  Pierce: 

^  Reverend  and  Dear  Brethren:  —  I  have  re- 
ceived two  extracts  from  your  Journal  of  the  4th 
and  5th  instant.  From  these  extracts  I  learn  you 
decline  receiving  me  in  my  proper  character,  as 
the  accredited  delegate  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South, 
and  only  invite  me  to  a  seat  within  the  bar  as  due 
to  me  on  account  of  my  private  and  personal 
merits.  These  considerations  I  shall  appreciate, 
and  will  reciprocate  them  in  all  the  private  and 
social  walks  of  life;  but  within  the  bar  of  the 
General  Conference  I  can  only  be  known  in  my 
official  character. 

You  will  therefore  regard  this  communication 
as  final  on  the  part  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South, 
She  can  never  renew  the  offer  of  fraternal  rela- 
tions between  the  two  great  bodies  of  Wesleyan 
23* 


538  Organisation  of  the 

Methodists  in  the  United  States.  But  the  propo- 
sition can  be  renewed  at  any  time,  either  now  or 
hereafter,  by  the  M.  E.  Church.  And  if  ever 
made  upon  the  basis  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  as 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  the 
Church,  South,  will  cordially  entertain  the  propo- 
sition. 

With  sentiments  of  deep  regret,  and  with  feel- 
ings of  disappointed  hopes,  I  am  yours,  in  Chrisr 
tian  fellowship,  L.  Pierce, 

Delegate  from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South. 

Pittsburgh,  May  9, 1848. 

The  student  of  Methodist  history  will  ever  feel 
surprised  no  less  at  the  action  of  the  General 
Conference  in  declining  to  receive  Dr.  Pierce  as 
the  accredited  representative  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  bearing  tidings  of  good- 
will to  those  with  whom  they  had  once  been  so 
closely  identified,  and  whose  history  was  inter- 
woven one  with  the  other,  than  at  the  reason  they 
assigned  for  this  refusal,  namely,  that  "there  are 
serious  questions  and  difficulties  existing  between 
the  two  bodies." 

The  "serious  questions  and  difficulties"  have 
reference  to  the  claim  of  the  South  for  their  pro- 
portion of  the  property  of  the  Church,  to  which 
they  were  entitled  as  provided  for  in  the  Plan  of 
Separation.      While  an   impartial  verdict  might 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  539 

admit  that  this  would  have  been  a  valid  reason 
why  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
should  have  hesitated  to  make  fraternal  proposi- 
tions, it  can  find  no  plausible  pretext  on  the  part 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  (North)  for 
their  refusal  to  accept  the  kindly  offer.  We  make 
no  remarks  on  the  action  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  M.  E.  Church  (North).  It  would  be 
improper  to  do  so.- 

Although  entirely  ignored  by  the  body  to  whom 
he  was  appointed,  other  denominations  sought  the 
ministry  of  Dr.  Pierce.  The  briefness  of  his  stay, 
however,  only  allowed  him  to  preach  in  a  single 
pulpit,  w^here  a  crowded  audience  was  charmed 
with  his  eloquence,  and  blessed  by  his  fervor  and 
zeal  for  his  Master's  cause. 

At  the  subsequent  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  held  in  St. 
Louis,  in  1850,  Dr.  Pierce  made  a  full  report  of 
his  visit  to  Pittsburgh,  and  of  the  failure  of  his 
mission.  In  this  report  he  takes  occasion  to  refer 
to  the  kind  sentiments  expressed  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  British  and  Canadian  Conferences 
in  reference  to  the  M.  E.  Church,  South.  He 
says  : 

I  "On  my  way  to  Pittsburgh,  I  had  the  happi- 
ness to  meet  in  Baltimore  that  Christian  gentle- 
man, and  eminent  minister  of  Christ,  the  Bev.  Dr. 
Dixon.     It  having  been  assumed,  as  a  thing  of 


540  Organization  of  the 

course,  that  a  Wesleyan  minister  from  England 
would  indorse  every  abolition  act  of  the  majority, 
and  knowing  as  I  did  that  almost  every  English- 
man was  committed  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  I 
could  but  feel  that  caution  and  reserve  were  called 
for.  My  private  feelings  and  almost  involuntary 
confidence  in  his  well- matured  judgment  still 
urged  me  to  commune  fearlessly  with  him  on  the 
points  in  dispute  between  the -North  and  South. 
His  attention,  however,  w^hen  his  ear  could  be 
gained,  was  called  mainly  by  one  of  the  delegates, 
who  also  had  fallen  in  with  the  Doctor  in  Balti- 
more. While  descending  the  river  from  Browns- 
ville, in  a  steamer,  the  Doctor  and  myself  had 
some  talk  upon  the  subject  of  the  division  of  the 
Church,  and  the  cause  which  had  led  to  it,  to  all 
which  he  listened  as  one  whose  heart  sympathized 
with  every  interest  of  the  great  Wesleyan  family. 

"  When  in  full  view  of  the  city,  and  knowing  we 
would  soon  be  separated,  I  remarked  to  him  that, 
although  we  were  delegates  sent  to  the  same  body 
from  different  portions  of  one  great  family,  I 
feared  a  very  different  fate  awaited  us.  'You 
will  be  received  and  welcomed  as  a  messenger  of 
the  Church,  while  I  shall  be  refused  and  rejected.' 

"To  these  remarks  he  warmly  said,  'I  hope 
not;'  adding,  'If  you  are  rejected,  it  will  be  the 
occasion  of  everlasting  regret  to  me.' 

"Here  we  parted,  and  were  but  little  together 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  641 

until  our  departure  for  Cincinnati,  when  a  gracious 
Providence  brought  us  together  again  on  another 
fine  steamer. 

"While  on  this  passage,  I  found  the  Doctor  in- 
tensely engaged  reading  the  books  which  had  been 
given  him  by  the  Southern  preachers  on  the  cause 
of  division  between  the  North  and  South.  The 
facts  contained  in  these  records  made  a  deep  im- 
pression on  his  mind,  and  led  him  to  converse 
more  freely  on  this,  to  him,  painful  occurrence. 
He  was  a  man,  however,  of  such  finely-balanced 
feeling,  and  well-disciplined  mind,  that  no  opinion 
was  openly  expressed.  But  permit  me  to  say 
this  much:  I  believe  Dr.  Dixon  to  be  a  man  to- 
ward whom  the  Church,  South,  should  cherish  a 
high  appreciation. 

"  On  this  trip  to  Cincinnati,  I  had  the  pleasure 
of  the  company  of  Brother  Ryerson,  one  of  the 
delegates  from  Canada,  and  the  traveling  compan- 
ion of  Dr.  Dixon.  His  more  natural  and  close 
relation  to  the  Doctor  contributed  no  little  to  the 
assurance  I  felt,  that  he  sympathized  with  us  in 
feelings  of  tender  regard.  The  opportunity  was 
so  good,  and  the  pleasure  which  fraternal  inter- 
course with  any  and  every  legitimate  organization 
of  Wesleyan  Methodists  would  impart,  that  I 
could  not  fail  to  ask  Brother  Ryerson  how  he 
thought  an  offer  from  us  of  friendly  relations  with 
the  Canada  Conference  Avould  be  received.     To 


542  Organization  of  the 

which  he  replied:  'Most  cordially.  Our  sympa- 
thies are  all  with  the  South.' 

"In  view  of  these  very  cordial  words,  and 
prompted,  as  w^e  ever  ought  to  be,  by  a  pure  fra- 
ternal love  for  all  the  children  of  Wesley,  I  would 
respectfully  suggest  the  propriety  of  this  General 
Conference  directing,  by  resolution,  the  Bishops, 
or  a  committee  created  for  the  purpose,  to  send 
to  the  next  British  Conference  a  letter  declaratory 
of  our  firm  attachment  to  Methodism  as  w^e  re- 
ceived it  from  Mr.  Wesley  in  the  days  of  Bishop 
Asbury,  and  of  the  pleasure  it  would  afford  us  to 
be  recognized  by  them  as  a  worthy  and  true- 
hearted  portion  of  the  great  Methodist  family. 
And  also,  that  the  same  course  be  pursued  toward 
the  Canada  Conference,  asking  from  each  Confer- 
ence an  answer  at  their  earliest  convenience." 

The  General  Conference  accepted  the  report  of 
their  representative,  and  adopted  the  following 
resolution : 

"Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  in  General 
Conference  assembled.  That  we  w^ill  steadfastly 
adhere  to  the  ground  taken  in  the  last  communi- 
cation of  our  delegate  to  the  General  Conference 
of  the  M.  E.  Church,  in  Pittsburgh,  May,  1848, 
to  wit:  That  we  cannot,  under  their  act  of  rejec- 
tion and  refusal,  renew  our  offer  of  fraternal  rela- 
tions and  intercourse;  but  Avill  at  all  times  enter- 


31,  E.  Church,  South.  543 

tain  any  proposition  coming  from  the  M.  E.  Church 
to  us,  whether  it  be  bv  written  communication,  or 
by  delegation,  having  for  its  object  friendly  rela- 
tions, and  predicated  of  the  rights  granted  to  us 
by  the  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  in  New  York, 
1844." 

The  spirit  of  charity  and  Christian  forbearance 
shown  on  this  occasion  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  in  their  highest  representative  body, 
is  worthy  of  all  commendation,  and  wdll  command 
the  admiration  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  all  the 
ages  to  come.  Their  proposal  of  fraternal  inter- 
course refused — their  messenger  rejected — instead 
of  returning  "railing  for  railing,"  animated  by  the 
highest  interests  of  Christianity,  and  the  conquests 
to  which  the  energies  of  Methodism  were  invited, 
they  declare  that  while  they  cannot  renew  their 
offer  of  fraternal  intercourse,  they  "  wDl  at  all  times 
entertain  any  proposition  coming  from  the  M.  E. 
Church  (North)  to  us,  whether  it  be  by  written 
communication,  or  by  delegation,  having  for  its 
object  friendly  relations,  and  predicated  of  the 
rights  granted  to  us  by  the  Plan  of  Separation." 

With  the  facts  as  presented  before  them,  the 
M.  E.  Church,  South,  could  not  do  more,  and  were 
not  willing  to  do  less.* 

*  Almost  twenty-three  years  have  elapsed  since  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  M.  E.  Church  (North)  rejected  the 


644  Organization  of  the 

The  property  question,  however,  had  not  been 
settled.  This  question  embraced  the  interest  held 
by  the  South  in  the  Book  Concerns  in  New  York 
and  Cincinnati,  including  "  a  common  right  to  the 
use  of  all  the  copyrights  in  possession  of  the  Book 
Concerns"  in  these  cities,  as  well  as  their  propor- 
tion of  the  Chartered  Fund  in  Philadelphia.  It 
also  included  the  transfer  "of  the  printing-presses 
in  Charleston,  Richmond,  and  Nashville,"  and  "  all 
the  property  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  meeting-houses,  parsonages,  colleges,  schools, 
Conference  Funds,  cemeteries,  and  of  every  kind, 
within  the  limits  of  the  Southern  Organization," 
which  had  previously  been  claimed  by  the  M.  E. 
Church. 

To  accomplish  the  transfer  of  this  property  with 
the  greatest  facility,  Nathan  Bangs,  George  Peck, 
and  James  B.  Finley,  had  been  appointed  Commis- 
sioners on  the  part  of  the  M.  E.  Church  (North) 
"  to  act  in  concert  with  the  same  number  of  Com- 
missioners appointed  by  the  Southern  Organiza- 
tion." 

It  was  thought  by  some  Northern  members  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,  that  the  sixth  re- 
strictive article  might  possibly  prevent  the  claims 

proffer  of  friendly  relations  with  the  M.  E.  Church,  South, 
and  up  to  this  date  no  proposition  has  come  from  them 
looking  to  fraternal  intercourse  between  the  two  bodies  of 
Methodists.      (See  Appendix  C) 


31.  E,  Church,  South.  545 

of  the  South  on  the  Book  Concerns  and  Chartered 
Fund  from  being  met  with  even-handed  justice; 
and  in  order  to  guard  against  this  possible  contin- 
gency, so  anxious  were  they  at  that  time  to  deal 
fairly  with  the  South,  that  "  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, at  their  approaching  sessions,"  were  recom- 
mended by  the  General  Conference  "  to  authorize 
a  change"  of  this  article,  by  which  all  barriers  to 
a  speedy  and  just  settlement  might  be  removed. 

The  failure  to  procure  the  requisite  number  of 
votes  by  which  the  sixth  restrictive  article  might 
be  changed,  was  not  attributable  to  the  South,  nor 
could  it  in  any  wa}^  vitiate  their  claims  to  a  pi^o 
rata  division  of  the  property. 

In  1846,  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  adopted  the  follow- 
ing report : 

Appointment  of  Commissioners  by  the  General  Conference 
of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  with  instructions. 

1.  Resolved,  (by  the  delegates  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  in  General  Conference  assembled,) 
That  three  Commissioners  be  appointed  in  accord- 
ance with  the  "Plan  of  Separation"  adopted  by 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  1844,  to  act  in  concert  wdth  the  Com- 
missioners appointed  by  the  said  M.  E.  Church,  to 
estimate  the  amount  due  to  the  South,  according 


546  Organization  of  the 

to  the  aforesaid  "Plan  of  Separation,"  and  to  ad* 
just  and  settle  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  divis- 
ion of  the  Church-property  and  funds,  as  provided 
for  in  the  ^'  Plan  of  Separation,"  with  full  powers 
to  carry  into  effect  the  whole  arrangement  Avith 
regard  to  said  division. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  Commissioners  of  the  M. 
E.  Church,  South,  shall  forthwith  notify  the  Com- 
missioners and  Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  their  appointment  as  afore- 
said, and  of  their  readiness  to  adjust  and  settle 
the  matters  aforesaid ;  and  should  no  such  settle- 
ment be  effected  before  the  session  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
1848,  said  Commissioners  shall  have  power  and 
authority  for,  and  in  behalf  of,  this  Conference,  to 
attend  the  General  Conference  of  the  M.  E.  Church 
to  settle  and  adjust  all  questions  involving  prop- 
erty or  funds  w^hich  may  be  pending  between  the 
M.  E.  Church  and  the  M.  E.  Church,  South. 

3.  Resolved,  That  should  the  Commissioners  ap- 
pointed by  this  General  Conference,  after  proper 
effort,  fail  to  effect  a  settlement  as  above,  then, 
and  in  that  case,  they  shall  be,  and  are  hereby, 
authorized  to  take  such  measures  as  may  best  se- 
cure the  just  and  equitable  claims  of  the  M.  E. 
Church,  South,  to  the  property  and  funds  afore- 
said. 

4.  Resolved,  That  John  Early  be,  and   he  is 


31.  E,  Church,  South.  547 

hereby,  authorized  to  act  as  the  Agent  or  Appointee 
of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  in  conformity  to  the 
"Plan  of  Separation"  adopted  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1844,  to  receive  and  hold  in  trust 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
South,  all  property  and  funds,  of  every  descrip- 
tion, which  may  be  paid  over  to  him  by  the  agents 
of  the  M.  E.  Church. 

5.  Resolved,  That  the  Commissioners,  Appointee, 
and  Book  Agent,  report  to  the  next  General  Con- 
ference of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South. 

6.  Resolved,  That  should  a  vacancy  occur  in  the 
Board  of  Commissioners,  or  in  the  office  of  Ap- 
pointee, herein  provided  for,  by  death  or  other- 
wise, in  the  interim  of  the  General  Conference, 
then,  and  in  that  case,  the  remaining  members  of 
the  Board  shall  have  power  to  fill  such  vacancy, 
with  the  approbation  of  one  or  more  of  the  Bish- 
ops. W.  A.  Smith,  Chairman. 

Immediately  after  the  adoption  of  the  report, 
the  Conference  proceeded  to  the  election  of  the 
Commissioners  by  ballot,  and  "on  the  first  ballot- 
ing, H.  B.  Bascom,  A.  L.  P.  Green,  and  S.  A. 
Latta  were  elected." 

From  the  concihatory  spirit  in  which  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1844  had  met  the  necessities 
of  the  South,  and  from  the  anxiety  expressed  to 
do  them  ample  justice,  it  would  be  readily  sup- 


548  Organization  of  the 

posed  that  the  appointment  of  Commissioners  was 
only  necessary,  that  authority  to  receive  the  pro- 
portion of  the  property  due  the  South  might  be 
somewhere  invested. 

On  the  25th  of  August,  1846,  Messrs.  Bascom, 
Green,  and  Latta  met  in  Cincinnati,  and  addressed 
the  following  communication  to  the  Commissioners 
who  had  been  appointed  by  the  M.  E.  Church 
(North) : 

The  undersigned  Commissioners,  appointed  by 
the  late  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  accordance  with  the 
Plan  of  Separation,  adopted  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
1844,  to  act  in  concert  with  the  Commissioners  of 
said  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  specially  ap- 
pointed for  the  purpose,  in  estimating  the  amount 
of  property  and  funds  due  to  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  according  to  the  Plan  of  Sep- 
aration aforesaid,  and  to  adjust  and  settle  all  mat- 
ters pertaining  to  the  division  of  the  Church-prop- 
erty and  funds  as  agreed  upon  and  provided  for  in 
said  plan,  with  full  powers  at  the  same  time  to 
carry  into  effect  the  whole  arrangement  with  re- 
gard to  said  division  of  property,  would  respect- 
fully give  notice  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bangs,  Dr.  Peck, 
and  Rev.  James  B.  Finley,  Commissioners,  and  the 
Rev.  George  Lane  and  C.  B.  Tippett,  Book  Agents 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  549 

of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  they  are 
prepared  to  act  in  concert  with  them,  as  the  Plan 
of  Separation  contemplates,  and  requests  in  an 
amicable  attempt  to  settle  and  adjust  all  the  mat- 
ters and  interests  to  which  the  appointment  of  each 
Board  of  Commissioners  relates — that  is  to  say, 
all  questions  involving  property  and  funds  which 
may  be  pending  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  the  Metho^dist  Episcopal  Church, 
South.  And  as  necessary  to  such  a  result,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Commissioners,  South,  they  would 
respectfully  suggest  and  urge  the  propriety  and 
necessity  of  a  joint  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Com- 
missioners, North  and  South,  at  a  period  as  early 
as  practicable,  that  the  intention  of  the  Plan  of 
Separation,  in  this  respect,  may  not  be  defeated 
by  unnecessary  delay.  It  has  been  the  aim  of  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  to  see  that  all  the  terms  and  stipu- 
lations of  the  Plan  of  Separation  be  strictly  com- 
plied with  on  their  part,  and  provision  has  been 
accordingly  made  that  the  Bev.  John  Early,  Book 
Agent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  its  appointee  to  receive  the  property  and  funds 
falling  due  to  the  South,  be  duly  and  properly 
clothed  with  the  legal  and  corporate  powers  re- 
quired by  the  Plan  of  Separation.  And  the  un- 
dersigned Commissioners  are  not  able  to  perceive 
any  valid  reason  or  reasons  why  the  negotiation 


550  Organization  of  ilie 

respecting  the  division  of  property  should  not  pro- 
ceed in  the  hands  of  the  joint  Commissioners  with- 
out delay,  and  hence  request  the  joint  meeting  of 
the  Commissioners  of  the  bodies  they  represent  to 
judge  and  determine  whether  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences have  authorized  the  change  of  the  sixth  re- 
strictive rule ;  and  as  no  such  decision  can  be  had 
until  given  by  them,  it  seems  important  that  such 
decision  should  be  given^by  them  as  soon  as  prac- 
ticable, and  we  know^  of  no  mode  of  conclusive 
action  in  the  case,  except  by  a  joint  meeting  of 
the  Commissioners.  The  Plan  of  Separation  pro- 
vides for  no  intermediate  action  between  that  of 
the  Annual  Conferences  and  that  to  be  had  by  the 
Commissioners,  and  unless  the  Commissioners  North 
are  in  possession  of  information,  clear  and  satis- 
factory, that  the  action  of  the  Annual  Conferences, 
in  the  aggregate  vote  given  by  them,  is  adverse  to 
the  recommendation  of  the  General  Conference,  it 
is  obviously  made  their  duty,  by  the  Plan  of  Sep- 
aration, to  meet  and  decide  the  question.  From 
all  the  information  in  our  possession,  we  see  no 
reason  why  we  should  not  act  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  proposed  change  in  the  restrictive 
rule  has  been  authorized.  The  language  of  the 
Discipline  is,  "  Upon  the  concurrent  recommenda- 
tion of  three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the 
several  Annual  Conferences,  who  shall  be  present 
and  vote  upon  such  recommendations."     The  Ian- 


M.  E.  Church,  South,  551 

guage  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  is,  "Whenever 
the  Annual  Conferences,  by  a  vote  of  three-fourths 
of  all  their  members  voting  on  the  third  resolu- 
tion." It  follows,  hence,  that  both  by  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Discipline,  and  that  of  the  Plan  of 
Separation,  the  question  was  to  be  settled  by  the 
aggregate  vote  of  those  members  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  who  were  present  in  their  an- 
nual sessions  when  the  question  came  up,  and  actu- 
ally  voted  upon  it.  If  any  refused  or  failed  to  vote, 
with  such  we  have  nothing  to  do ;  they  cannot  be 
regarded  as  either  for  or  against  the  measure. 
They  declined  the  right  of  suffrage  by  refusing  to 
act,  and  the  determination  of  the  question  rests 
with  those  who  were  present  and  voted  in  accord- 
ance with  the  law.  In  the  instance  of  several 
Annual  Conferences  the  vote  was  contingent,  and 
future  events,  now  to  be  judged  of  by  the  Commis- 
sioners, were  to  give  an  affirmative  or  negative  char- 
acter to  their  votes.  In  the  instance  of  two  of 
these  at  least,  (and  we  believe  it  to  be  equally  true 
of  four,)  it  is  susceptible  of  the  clearest  proof,  that 
by  their  oivn  official  showing,  their  votes  must,  be- 
yond all  doubt,  be  counted  in  the  affirmative,  or 
not  at  all ;  and  in  either  case,  and  indeed  without 
reference  to  either,  taking  no  account  of  the  Con- 
ferences which  refused  to  vote,  it  is  believed  the 
constitutional  majority  of  all  the  votes  given  was 
in  favor  of  the  change ;  and  it  will,  it  seems  to  us, 


552  Organkation  of  the 

devolve  upon  the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  to  make  the  contrary  appear  be- 
fore they  can,  in  good  faith,  refuse  to  carry  into 
effect  the  Plan  of  Separation.  To  settle  this  ques- 
tion fairly  and  honorably,  and  in  accordance  with 
the  facts  in  the  case,  it  is  believed  that  a  meeting 
of  the  Commissioners  is  indispensable.  To  this 
we  may  add,  that  the  most  w^eighty  considerations, 
both  of  justice  and  humanity,  demand  alike  that 
the  question  be  settled  as  early  as  possible,  as  the 
dividends  to  which  we  are  declared  entitled  by  the 
Plan  of  Separation,  and  which  that  plan  pledges 
shall  be  paid  to  us,  until  the  division  of  property 
shall  actually  take  place,  have  already  been  with- 
held, and  our  "traveling,  supernumerary,  super- 
annuated, and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives, 
widows,  and  children,  are  literally  suffering  for 
the  want  of  funds  given  in  trust  for  their  support 
— funds  to  which  the  General  Conference  of  1844 
not  only  declared  them  entitled,  but  solemnly 
stipulated  to  divide  with  them  upon  principles  of 
'Christian  kindness  and  strictest  equity.'" 

The  division  of  property  and  funds  stipulated 
contemplates  no  gratuity  to  the  South,  for  it  is 
well  known  that  in  receiving  all  the  Plan  of  Sep- 
aration accords  to  us,  we  are  receiving  but  a  part 
of  w^hat  the  South  has  contributed  to  the  common 
fund  in  question. 

There  is  another  view  of  this  subject  which,  in 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  553 

our  judgment,  should  not  be  overlooked  by  the 
Commissioners.  The  proposed  change  in  the  re- 
strictive rule  was  regarded  by  all  who  favored  the 
Plan  of  Separation  in  the  General  Conference 
of  1844,  merely  as  means  to  an  end.  The  end 
aimed  at  was  an  equitable  division  of  the  Church- 
property;  and  the  more  certainly  and  securely 
to  eifect  this,  within  the  established  forms  of 
law  and  order,  the  change  in  question  was  pro- 
posed ;  such  change,  however,  or  the  want  of  it, 
cannot  possibly  affect,  in  any  form,  the  question 
of  right  or  the  true  issue  in  a  legal  process, 
should  it  be  found  necessary  to  institute  such 
process. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  intends 
a  most  sacred  appropriation  of  the  funds  they  may 
receive,  exclusively  to  the  purposes  specified  in 
the  sixth  restrictive  article,  and  not  intending  to 
divert  them  in  any  way  to  any  other  object  or 
purpose,  the  change  recommended  by  the  General 
Conference  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of 
form,  subordinate,  in  every  high  moral  and  legal 
sense,  to  the  end  had  in  view  by  the  body  in  the 
adoption  of  the  Plan  of  Separation.  The  object 
in  calling  attention  to  this  view  of  the  subject  is 
not  in  any  way  to  supersede  the  Plan  of  Separa- 
tion, but  to  insist,  as  we  shall  always  continue  to 
do,  that  unless  the  letter  of  the  plan  shall  inter- 
pose insuperable  difficulties,  its  spirit  and  inten- 
24 


554  Ch^ganization  of  the 

tion  plainly  and  imperatively  demand,  at  the 
hands  of  the  Commissioners,  that  they  carry  it 
into  effect,  and  that  they  cannot  fail  to  do  so 
without  a  grave  abuse  of  the  trust  reposed  in 
them.  Hence,  again,  we  urge  that  a  meeting  of 
the  Commissioners  at  any  early  day  is  necessary 
to  settle  this  preliminary  question,  which,  it  ap- 
pears to  us,  can  be  conclusively  settled  in  no  other 
way. 

It  certainly  cannot  be  necessary  that  we  remind 
the  Commissioners  and  Book  Agents  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  that  the  peace  and  quiet, 
not  less  than  the  character  and  hopes  of  the  Church, 
North  and  South,  urgently  require  that  this  great 
property  question  be  settled  as  soon  as  practica- 
ble ;  and  we  are  most  anxious  that  it  should  be 
done  amicably  and  with  good  feeling,  and  especially 
that  it  may  be  done  without  an  appeal  to  the  civil 
tribunals  of  the  country;  and  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  .Church,  South, 
have  accordingly  instructed  their  Commissioners  to 
look  to  such  an  issue  as  the  last  resort,  in  view  of 
the  adjustment  aimed  at. 

In  conclusion,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  view  of  the  facts 
and  considerations  to  which  they  have  adverted  in 
this  communication,  would  respectfully  and  ur- 
gently call  upon  Dr.  Bangs,  as  Chairman  of  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 


M.  E.  Churchy  South  555 

to  call  a  meeting  of  the  joint  Board  of  Commis- 
sioners, as  herein  before  indicated,  and  we  cheer- 
fully concede  to  him  the  right,  so  far  as  we  are 
concerned,  of  fixing  the  time  and  flace  at  any  pe- 
riod between  the  last  of  October  and  the  first  of 
March  next. 

Very  respectfully, 

H.  B.  Bascom, 
A.  L.  P.  Green, 
S.  A.  Latta. 
Cincinnati,  Ohio,  August  25,  1846. 

P.  S. — We  would  respectfully  ask  and  claim, 
upon  the  ground  of  justice  and  right,  that  the 
Commissioners  and  Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  make  a  direct  call,  by  authority 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  upon  the  Sec- 
retaries of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  for  an  authentic,  attested 
statement  of  the  vote  or  action  of  each  Conference 
in  relation  to  the  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive 
rule,  and  the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  will  do  the  same  within  the 
limits  of  the  Southern  Organization. 

H.  B.  Bascom, 
A.  L.  P.  Green, 
S.  A.  Latta. 

To  this  communication  the  following  reply  was 
made : 


556  Organization  of  the 

To  H.  B.  Bascora,  A.  L.  P.  Green,  and  S.  A.  Latta,  Com- 
missioners of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

Dear  Brethren  : — We  have  received  your  com- 
munication, dated  the  25th  August,  1846,  request- 
ing us  to  call  a  joint  meeting  of  the  Commission- 
ers appointed  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  Com- 
missioners appointed  by  the  General  Conference 
of  1845  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,- 
South,  in  order  to  adjust  the  property  question, 
as  provided  for  in  the  Provisional  Plan  of  Sep- 
aration, adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1844. 

In  reply  to  this,  we  have  to  say  that,  in  our 
judgment,  we  have  no  authority  to  act  in  the 
premises,  as  we  have  never  been  officially  notified 
that  the  requisite  number  of  votes  in  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  has  been  given  in  favor  of  the 
alteration  in  the  sixth  restrictive  rule  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  nor  have  we  any  author- 
ity to  call  on  the  Secretaries  of  the  several  An- 
nual Conferences  to  give  us  the  requisite  informa- 
tion as  you  have  suggested. 

On  these  accounts  we  must  respectfully  decline 
to  act  in  the  premises,  as  our  action  would,  in  our 
opinion,  be  null  and  void.  N.  Bangs, 

Geo.  Peck, 

J.  B.  FiNLEY. 

New  York,  October  14, 1846. 


M.  E,  Churchy  South.  557 

From  this  period  until  the  subsequent  meeting 
of  the  General  Conference  of  the  M.  E.  Church 
(North),  no  farther  steps  were  taken  by  the  South- 
ern Commissioners.  The  General  Conference  met 
in  Pittsburgh  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1848,  and 
on  the  12th  the  Commissioners  of  the  M.  E. 
Church,  South,  submitted  to  that  body  the  following 
communication : 

Pittsburgh,  May  11,  1848. 

.  Hev.  and  Dear  Brethren  : — The  undersigned 
Commissioners  and  Appointee  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  respectfully  represent  to 
your  body  that,  pursuant  to  our  appointment,  and 
in  obedience  to  specific  instructions,  we  notified 
the  Commissioners  and  Agent  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  our  readiness  to  proceed  to 
the  adjustment  of  the  property  question  according 
to  the  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1844.  And  we  furthermore  state, 
that  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  informed  us 
they  would  not  act  in  the  case^^  and  referred  us  to 
your  body  for  the  settlement  of  the  question  as  to 
the  division  of  the  property  and  funds  of  the 
Church.  And  being  furthermore  instructed  by 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  South,  in  case  of  a  failure  to  settle 
with  your  Commissioners,  to  attend  the  session  of 


658  Organization  of  the 

your  body  in  1848,  for  the  "settlement  and  ad- 
justment of  all  questions  involving  property  and 
funds,  which  may  be  pending  between  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  South,"  take  this  method  of  inform- 
ing you  of  our  presence,  and  of  our  readiness  to 
attend  to  the  matters  committed  to  our  trust  and 
agency  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South; 
and  we  desire  to  be  informed  as  to  the  time  and- 
manner  in  which  it  may  suit  your  views  and  con- 
venience to  consummate  with  us  the  division  of 
the  property  and  funds  of  the  Church,  as  provided 
for  in  the  Plan  of  Separation,  adopted  with  so 
much  unanimity  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1844.  And  for  our  authority  in  the  premises,  we 
respectfully  refer  you  to  the  accompanying  docu- 
ment, marked  A. 

A.  L.  P.  Green,  ^ 

C.  B.  Parsons,     \  Commissioners. 

L.  Pierce,  J 

John  Early,  Appointee. 

This  communication  was  accompanied  with  a 
document,  properly  authenticated,  showing  the  au- 
thority under  which  the  Southern  Commissioners 
were  acting. 

To  this  communication  no  reply  was  made,  nor 
was  it  even  referred  to  a  committee. 

On  the  18th  the  following  letter  was  addressed 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  559 

by  the  Commissioners  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
South,  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  M.  E.  Church 
(North) : 

Pittsburgh,  18  th  May,  1848. 
The  undersigned,  Commissioners  of  the  M.  E. 
Church,  South,  appointed  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  said  Church,  in  accordance  with  the  Plan 
of  Separation,  adopted  by  the  General  Conference 
of  the  M.  E.  Church  in  1844,  Avould  respectfully 
represent  to  Rev.  Nathan  Bangs,  George  Peck, 
and  James  B.  Finley,  Commissioners  on  the  part 
of  the  M.  E.  Church,  that  it  is  important  their 
stay  in  the  city  should  not  be  prolonged  beyond  the 
period  necessary  to  accomplish,  as  far  as  may  be 
found  practicable,  the  objects  of  their  commission. 
And  with  a  view  to  a  correct  decision  in  the 
case,  the  undersigned  beg  leave  to  inquire — 1st. 
Whether,  as  Commissioners,  appointed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1844,  to  act  in  concert  with  a 
similar  Board  of  Commissioners  in  behalf  of  the 
Church,  South,  provided  for  in  the  Plan  of  Sep- 
aration, 3^ou  regard  yourselves  as  authorized  to 
act  in  the  premises,  under  the  authority  above ; 
and  if  so,  in  what  form?  2d.  Should  your  an- 
swer to  this  inquiry  be  in  the  negative,  we  would 
respectfully  ask.  Have  you  any  thing  to  propose 
to  us,  as  Commissioners  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
South,  designed  to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions 


660  Organization  of  the 

of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  having  reference  to  the 

division  of  the  Church-property  ? 

Very  truly  and  respectfully, 

H.  B.  Bascom, 
A.  L.  P.  Green, 
C.  B.  Parsons. 

Rev.  N.  Bangs,  Geo.  Peck,  and  Jas.  B.  Fiuley. 

On  the  20th  of  the  month  Mr.  Finley  presented 
this  letter  to  the  General  Conference,  and  moved 
its  reference  to  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the 
Church.  He  afterward  withdrew  the  motion  to 
refer,  when  it  was  renewed  by  Mr.  Creagh,  of  the 
New  York  Conference.  To  prevent  its  reference, 
however,  Mr.  Finley  Avithdrew  the  paper. 

On  the  same  day  Messrs.  Peck  and  Finley  re- 
plied as  follows  to  the  communication  of  Messrs. 
Bascom,  Green,  and  Parsons  : 

Pittsburgh,  May  20, 1848. 

Rev.  Messrs.  H.  B.  Bascom,  D.D.,  A.  L.  P.  Green,  and  C. 
B.  Parsons : 

Gentlemen  : — The  undersigned  have  the  honor 
to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  communi- 
cation of  the  18th  inst.,  and  would  respectfully 
reply : 

1.  That  the  conditions  upon  which  their  pow- 
ers, as  "  Commissioners  "  appointed  by  the  General 
Conference  at  its  session  in  1844,  were  made  to 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  561 

depend,  having  failed,  they  have  not,  and  never 
had,  power  to  act  in  the  matter  in  question. 

2.  In  accordance  with  the  above   view,  they 
would  respectfully  say  that  they  have  nothing  to 
"propose"  to  you  touching  these  matters. 
With  sentiments  of  esteem,  yours, 

George  Peck, 
James  B.  Finley. 

It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  reason  given 
by  the  General  Conference  for  declining  to  receive 
Dr.  Pierce  as  a  fraternal  messenger  from  the  M. 
E.  Church,  South,  was,  that  "serious  questions 
and  difficulties  "  existed  "  between  the  two  bodies." 
It  has  already  been  stated  that  these  "serious 
questions  and  difficulties"  had  reference  to  the 
property  in  which  the  South  had  an  interest.  The 
question  will  naturally  occur,  Why,  if  the  M.  E. 
Church  (North)  was  willing  to  deal  justly  with 
the  South,  and  to  settle  the  points  at  issue,  did 
the  General  Conference  refuse  to  entertain  the 
communication  from  the  Southern  Commissioners? 
The  South  asked  for  nothing  to  which  they  were 
not  entitled,  and  which  had  not  been  conceded  by 
the  Plan  of  Separation.  To  the  building  up  of 
the  Book  Concerns  in  New  York  and  Cincinnati, 
as  well  as  the  Chartered  Fund,  the  South  had  la- 
bored with  untiring  energy,  as  well  as  contributed 
their  money.  When  the  Book  Concern  in  New 
24* 


662  Organization  of  the 

York,  in  18345  was  destroyed  by  fire,  the  Church 
in  the  South,  as  well  as  in  the  North,  aided  with 
large  contributions  to  raise  it  from  its  ruins. 

The  duties  of  the  Southern  Commissioners,  so 
far  as  they  referred  to  the  General  Conference  of 
the  M.  E.  Church  (North),  having  been  performed, 
they  left  for  their  homes.  Their  presence  in  Pitts- 
burgh, however,  had  excited  extraordinary  inter- 
est, and  its  influence  was  felt  in  the  General  Con- 
ference. This  body  was  not  content  with  its  own 
action,  or  rather  its  want  of  action,  and  hence 
it  gave  evidence  of  unrest. 

On  the  18th  of  May,  two  days  previous  to 
the  date  of  the  letter  addressed  by  the  South- 
ern Commissioners  to  Messrs.  Peck  and  Finley, 
Mr.  Finley  offered  the  following  preamble  and 
resolution,  which  was  laid  on  the  table  for  the 
present : 

"Whereas,  the  division  of  the  Book  Concern, 
and  other  Church-property,  with  the  Church,  South, 
has  not  been  authorized  by  the  vote  of  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  as  provided  for  in  the  Plan  of 
Separation ;  and,  whereas,  they  still  claim  that  we 
owe  them,  which  involves  questions  of  great  mag- 
nitude and  importance ;  therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  State  of 
the  Church  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  pro- 
priety and  expediency  of  offering  to  refer  the 
above   question   to  disinterested   arbiters,  to  be 


31.  R  Church,  South.  663 

chosen  by  the  parties,  for  amicable  adjustment, 
and  report  thereon." 

On  the  26th  of  the  month  the  General  Confer- 
ence declared  the  Plan  of  Separation  "  null  and 
void." 

On  the  following  day  George  Peck,  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church, 
presented  so  much  of  their  report  as  referred  to 
the  "  property  question."     It  reads  as  follows  : 

The  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church  beg 
leave  farther  to  report,  in  part — 

That  they  have  had  under  consideration  the 
claims  preferred  by  the  Church,  South,  to  a  por- 
tion of  the  property  of  the  Book  Concern  and 
Chartered  Fund ;  and,  pending  the  discussion  of 
the  subject,  the  question  of  proposing  to  refer  the 
whole  matter  to  disinterested  arbiters  was  proposed 
and  considered.  Whereupon  the  committee  agreed 
to  recommend  to  the  General  Conference  for  adop- 
tion the  following  resolutions  : 

"Resolved,  1.  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Con- 
ference that  we  have  no  authority,  independently 
of  the  Annual  Conferences,  to  enter  into  arbitra- 
tion with  the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  relation  to  the  claims 
set  up  by  them  to  a  division  of  the  vested  funds 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"Resolved^  2.  That  this  General  Conference  rec- 


564  Organization  of  the 

ommend  to  the  Annual  Conferences  so  far  to  sus- 
pend the  sixth  restrictive  rule  of  the  Discipline  as 
to  allow  the  appointment  of  Commissioners,  for  the 
purpose  of  arbitrating  what  is  technically  called 
the  Property  Question  with  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
"  By  order  of  the  committee. 

"  Hespectfully  submitted, 

"George  Peck,  Chairman^ 

This  report  was  supported  by  a  long  speech 
from  Mr.  Peck,  at  the  close  of  which  the  follow- 
ing substitute  was  offered  by  John  F.  Wright,  of 
Ohio: 

"  Whereas,  it  is  now  ascertained  that  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  to 
change  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  so  as  to  allow 
of  a  division  of  the  property  of  the  Book  Concern, 
with  distinct  ecclesiastical  connection,  which  might 
be  formed  by  the  thirteen  Annual  Conferences  in 
the  slaveholding  States,  has  not  been  concurred  in 
by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of 
the  several  Annual  Conferences  present  and  vot- 
ing on  said  recommendations; 

"And,  whereas,  the  thirteen  protesting  Annual 
Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  having 
formed  themselves  into  a  separate  and  distinct  ec- 
clesiastical organization,  under  the  title  or  name 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churchy  South,  and 


31.  E.  ChurcL  South.  665 


their  General  Conference  in  May,  1846,  did  au- 
thorize their  Commissioners  (whoset^redentials  have 
been  received  by  this  General  Conference)  to 
present  and  adjust  their  claim  on  the  funds  of 
the  Book  Concern  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church ; 

"And,  Tvhereas,  our  common  and  holy  Christian- 
ity prescribes  and  enjoins  the  most  pacific  meas- 
ures for  the  settlement  of  all  matters  in  dispute 
between  individuals,  as  Avell  as  associations  of  pro- 
fessing Christians ;  and  the  whole  Christian  world 
expect  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  adopt 
the  most  peaceful  and  conciliatory  measures  for  the 
settlement  of  any  claim  that  may  be  urged  against 
them ;  therefore, 

''Resolved^  (by  the  delegates  of  the  several  An- 
nual Conferences  in  General  Conference  assem- 
bled,) That  we  propose  to  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Church,  South,  to  refer  the  question  of  their 
claim  on  our  Book  Concern  to  five  arbitei's,  neither 
of  whom  shall  be  a  member  of  either  Church,  who 
shall  be  chosen  in  the  manner  here  prescribed, 
namely : 

"  The  Commissioners  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  Souths 
shall  choose  two  arbiters ;  and  three  Commission- 
ers, to  be  appointed  by  this  General  Conference, 
shall  choose  other  two ;  and  the  four  arbiters  thus 
chosen  shall  choose  a  fifth,  each  party  being  sol- 
emnly bound  to  abide   by  the  decision  such  ar- 


566  Organkaiion  of  ilie 

biters    shall    make    on    the    questions    of    such 
claims."  * 

This  substitute  was  laid  on  the  table. 

Dr.  Holdich  offered  and  moved  the  following 
substitute,  stating  it  to  be  a  paper  presented  by 
the  Bishops  in  response  to  a  written  request  of 
several  delegates  that  they  would  communicate 
their  opinions  in  regard  to  the  Property  Ques- 
tion : 

"  Whereas,  H.  B.  Bascom,  D.D.,  A.  L,  P.  Green, 
and  C.  B.  Parsons,  Commissioners  of  the  M.  E. 
Church,  South,  have  visited  the  seat  of  this  Con- 
ference to  urge  a  claim  to  a  portion  of  the  funds 
of  the  Book  Concern,  based,  it  is  understood,  on 
an  act  of  the  last  General  Conference,  known  as 
the  ^  Beport  of  the  Committee  of  Nine ;' 

"And,  whereas,  the  non-concurrence  of  the  An- 
nual Conferences  in  that  part  of  said  report  which 
bears  on  the  division  of  said  funds,  leaves  this 
General  Conference  without  any  authority  to  recog- 
nize or  adjust  said  claim  in  any  voluntary  way; 

"And,  whereas,  it  is  understood  from  the  peri- 
odicals of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  and  from  con- 
versations with  some  of  said  Commissioners,  that 
a  suit  at  law  will  be  resorted  to  for  the  recovery 
of  said  claim ; 

"And,  whereas,  the  commencement  of  this  suit 
will  change  the  form  of  this  difficulty,  rendering 
it  a  mere  business  transaction,  so  as  to  throw  it 


31.  E.  Chiirclu  South,  567 


"within  the  constitutional  control  of  the  General 
Conference ; 

"And,  whereas,  it  is  understood  that  the  Com- 
missioners would  accept  none  but  a  strictly  legal 
arbitration ; 

"And,  whereas,  this  Conference  desires  to  ad- 
vance as  far  as  its  constitutional  power  will  au- 
thorize toward  an  amicable  adjustment  of  this 
difficulty;  therefore, 

^'Resolved,  (by  the  General  Conference  of  the  M. 
E.  Church,)  1.  That  should  such  lawsuit  be  com- 
menced by  the  Commissioners,  our  Book  Agents 
at  New  York  and  Cincinnati  be,  and  are  hereby, 
authorized  and  advised  to  tender  to  said  Commis- 
sioners an  adjustment  of  the  claim,  based  on  the 
report  aforesaid  by  arbitration,  under  such  legal 
sanctions  as  shall  render  the  award  final,  and  of 
binding  effect  on  the  M.  E.  Church,  and  the  M. 
E.  Church,  South. 

'^Resolved^  2.  That  inasmuch  as  the  General  Con- 
ference is  not  formally  assured  that  such  suit  will 
be  commenced,  and  inasmuch  as  an  amicable  set- 
tlement of  the  difficulty  is  in  any  event  exceed- 
ingly desirable,  and  inasmuch  as  this  General  Con- 
ference has  no  power  or  authority  to  act  at  discre- 
tion in  this  matter,  either  to  allow  or  arbitrate  said 
claim,  if  not  prosecuted  in  court,  unless  the  An- 
nual Conferences  authorize  it  by  a  change  of  the 
constitution,  it  is  hereby  recommended  to  the  An- 


568  Organization  of  the 

nual  Conferences,  if  said  suit  is  not  commenced, 
so  far  to  suspend  the  sixth  ^restrictive  article'  of 
the  Discipline  as  to  authorize  our  Book  Agents  at 
New  York  and  Cincinnati  to  submit  to  arbitrate 
what  is  technically  called  the  Property  Ques- 
tion, i 

'^Resolved,  3.  That  in  case  said  suit  is  not  com- 
menced, the  Bishops  are  requested  to  lay  the  last 
resolution  before  the  Annual  Conferences  for  their 
concurrence." 

The  substitute  offered  by  Dr.  Holdich  met  the 
same  fate  as  the  one  proposed  by  Mr.  Wright. 

The  General  Conference  was  evidently  greatly 
perplexed.  They  were  in  a  dilemma,  from  the 
meshes  of  which  extrication  was  by  no  means 
easy.  All  over  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
(North)  were  to  be  found  men  of  sound  judgment 
and  enlightened  piety,  in  communion  with  the 
Church,  who  regarded  the  claims  of  the  Southern 
Division  to  a  pro  rata  proportion  of  the  property 
as  not  only  beyond  dispute,  but  as  too  sacred  to 
be  denied  them. 

The  verdict  of  popular  opinion  throughout  the 
Northern  States  was  in  favor  of  the  Southern 
claims,  while  in  the  General  Conference  were  min- 
isters eminent  for  their  learning  and  piety,  who, 
though  in  the  minority,  were  unwilling  to  com- 
promise their  honor  by  an  act  of  repudiation.  In 
the  midst  of  the  confusion  Jesse  T.  Peck  offered 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  569 

the  following  substitute,  which  w^as  seconded  by 
James  B.  Finley: 

"Whereas,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  having  in  due 'form  preferred  claims  against 
the  vested  fuiKls  and  other  property  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church ;  and,  whereas,  the  General 
Conference  has  no  power  officially  to  respond  to, 
or  in  any  way  adjust,  said  preferred  claims ;  and, 
w^hereas,  we  are  anxious  that  an  amicable  and 
strictly  equitable  disposition  may  be  made  of  them; 
therefore, 

"  1.  Resolved,  (by  the  delegates  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  General  Conference  assembled,)  That 
we  hereby  advise  the  Book  Agents  at  New  York 
and  Cincinnati,  immediately,  in  due  form,  and 
under  such  instructions  as  this  Conference  shall 
hereafter  give  them,  to  offer  to  submit  said  preferred 
claims  to  the  fidl  and  final  decision  of  judicious  and 
disinterested  arbiters. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  a  committee  of be  ap- 
pointed to  report  in  detail  to  this  Conference  suit- 
able instructions  to  be  communicated  to  the  said 
Agents  for  the  government  of  their  action  in  the 
premises." 

The  morning  session  closed  without  any  action 
on  the  substitute  of  Messrs.  Peck  and  Finley.  On 
the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  Mr.  Finley  advo- 
cated the  preamble  and  resolutions  in  a  speech  of 


570  Organkation  of  the 

considerable  length,  and  was  followed  by  Peter 
Akers,  of  the  Illinois  Conference. 

The  evening  session,  however,  adjourned  with- 
out reaching  any  conclusiorf.  In  the  meantime 
the  Sabbath  intervened,  and  on  Monday  the  follow- 
ing was  offered  by  Mr.  Akers,  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Book  Concern  : 

''Resolved,  That  the  Book  Agents  at  New  York 
be,  and  they  are  hereby,  instructed  to  pay  over 
to  such  person  or  persons  as  the  said  Book  Agents 
may  judge  to  be  authorized  to  receive  and  receipt 
for  the  same  in  behalf  of  the  several  claimants 
narrated  below,  so  much  of  the  disciplinary  allow- 
ances as  may  be  due  from  year  to  year  to  the 
widows  and  orphans  of  such  traveling,  supernu- 
merary, superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  as 
have  died  in  the  service  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  before  the  organization  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South;  also  the  superan- 
nuated preachers  who  still  adhere  to  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  so  that  such  widows  and 
orphans,  and  superannuated  and  supernumerary 
preachers  aforesaid,  living  Avithin  the  bounds  of 
the  several  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  may  receive  what  may 
be  equal  in  amount  to  that  which  widows  and  or- 
phans in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  may 
have  received,  or  shall  hereafter  receive,  from  the 
dividends  made  annually  from  the  Book  Concern." 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  571 

On  the  afternoon  of  Monday,  the  29th,  Mr. 
Brenton,  of  North  Indiana  Conference,  offered  the 
following,  which  was  presented  by  D.  Curry  and 
M.  Simpson: 

"  Whereas,  it  is  now  ascertained  that  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  General  Conference,  at  its  ses- 
sion in  1844,  to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  arti- 
cle so  as  to  allow  of  a  division  of  the  property 
of  the  Book  Concern,  with  a  distinct  ecclesiastical 
connection,  which  might  be  formed  by  the  thirteen 
Annual  Conferences  in  the  slave  States,  has  not 
been  concurred  in  by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  all 
the  members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences 
present  and  voting  on  said  recommendation ; 

''And,  w^hereas,  the  thirteen  protesting  Annual 
Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  have  formed 
themselves  into  a  separate  and  distinct  ecclesiastical 
connection,  under  the  title  and  name  of  the  '  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,'  and  their  General 
Conference  in  1846  did  authorize  three  Commis- 
sioners (whose  credentials  have  been  received  by 
this  General  Conference)  to  present  and  adjust 
their  claim  on  the  funds  of  the  Book  Concern  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ; 

"And,  whereas,  our  common  and  holi/  Christian- 
ity prescribes  and  enjoins  the  most  pacific  meas- 
ures for  the  settlement  of  all  matters  in  dispute 
between  individuals,  as  well  as  associations  of  pro- 
fessing Christians,  and  the  whole  Christian  world 


572  Organkation  of  the 

will  expect  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to 
adopt  the  most  peaceful  and  conciliatory  measures 
for  the  settlement  of  any  claim  that  may  be  urged 
against  them ; 

"And,  whereas,  this  Conference  desires  to  ad- 
vance, as  far  as  its  constitutional  powers  will  au- 
thorize, toward  an  amicable  adjustment  of  this 
difficulty;  therefore, 

"1.  Resolved,  (by  the  delegates  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  General  Conference  assembled,)  That 
we  hereby  authorize  the  Book  Agents  at  New 
York  and  at  Cincinnati  to  offer  to  submit  said 
claims  to  the  decision  of  disinterested  arbiters, 
provided  that  if  said  Agents,  on  the  advice  of 
eminent  legal  counsel,  shall  be  satisfied  that  when 
clothed  with  all  the  authority  which  the  General 
Conference  can  confer,  their  corporate  powers  will 
not  warrant  them  to  submit  said  claims  to  arbitra- 
tion, this  resolution  shall  not  be  binding  upon  them. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  should  the  Agents  find,  upon 
taking  such  legal  counsel,  that  they  have  not  the 
power  to  submit  the  case  to  voluntary  arbitration, 
and  should  a  suit  at  law  be  commenced  by  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  said  Agents  are  hereby  authorized,  then  and 
in  that  case,  to  tender  to  said  Commissioners  an 
adjustment  of  their  preferred  claims  by  a  legal  ar- 
bitration,  under  the  authority  of  the  court. 


31.  E.  Church,  South,  573 

"  3.  Resolved,  That  should  the  Agents  find  that 
they  are  not  authorized  to  tender  a  voluntary  ar- 
bitration, and  should  no  suit  be  commenced  by  the 
Commissioners  aforesaid,  then  and  in  that  case  the 
General  Conference  being  exceedingly  desirous  of 
eifecting  an  amicable  settlement  of  said  claim, 
recommend  to  the  Annual  Conferences  so  far  to 
suspend  the  ^ sixth  restrictive  article'  of  the 
Discipline,  as  to  authorize  our  Book  Agents  at 
New  York  and  Cincinnati  to  submit  said  claim  to 
arbitration. 

"4.  Resolved,  That  in  the  occurrence  of  the 
above  specified  contingencies,  the  Bishops  are  re- 
quested to  lay  the  foregoing  resolutions  before 
the  several  Annual  Conferences  for  their  concur- 
rence." 

The  first  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  majority 
of  three  votes;  the  second  by  a  majority  (^^forty- 
nine;  the  third  by  a  majority  of  fifty -seven;  on 
the  fourth  resolution  the  vote  was  not  counted, 
being  taken  by  lifting  the  hand. 

It  will  always  be  a  source  of  regret  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  (North)  refused  to 
comply  with  the  Plan  of  Separation  in  reference 
to  the  division  of  the  property,  which  belonged  in 
common  to  the  two  branches  of  Methodism.  The 
action  of  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  in  de- 
claring the  agreement  entered  into  between  the 
North  and  South  in  1844  to  be  null  and  void,  and 


574  Organization  of  the 

withholding  from  the  minority  what  was  justly 
theirs,  can  find  justification  nowhere. 

The  substitute  adopted  by  that  body  must  al- 
ways be  regarded  as  an  evasion  of  the  question, 
by  no  means  creditable  to  so  august  an  assembly 
as  a  General  Conference. 

In  referring  to  this  action,  the  Commissioners 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in 
their  "Appeal  to  Public  Opinion,"  thus  speak  :■ 

"This  ^so-called'  proposition  to  arbitrate  is 
uniquely  curious  in  nearly  all  its  aspects.  It  is 
so  completely  made  up  of  conditions,  shifts,  and 
evasions,  it  is  difficult  to  keep  it  in  the  mind  long 
enough  to  analyze  and  detect  its  falsehoods.  ^If ' 
legal  advice  should  so  decide — 4f 'the  Agents  them- 
selves are  ^satisfied' — ^if '  their  'corporate  powers 
w^ill  warrant' — 'if  they  find  they  have  not  power 
— 'if  legal  advice  be  against  it — 'if  suit  be  com- 
menced, then,  'if  they  choose,  they  can  offer  a 
legal  arbitration — or  of  course  let  it  alone,  and 
with  the  warrant  of  indemnity  before  them,  de* 
clare  the  whole  movement  'null  and  void!'  The 
chances  of  escape,  however,  are  not  exhausted. 
It  is  found  the  General  Conference  cannot  do  what 
they  had  seemed  to  do :  with  no  right  themselves 
to  arbitrate,  they  can  confer  none,  and  hence  new 
difficulties — 'should'  the  Agents  find  they  are  not 
authorized — 'should'  the  South  not  commence 
suit — 'then,  and  in  that  case,  they  recommend  the 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  575 

Annual  Conferences,  not  to  authorize  settlement 
and  payment  according  to  contract,  but  to  permit 
arbitration — the  arbitrators  to  say  whether  the 
General  Conference  shall  keep  faith  and  contract 
■with  the  South,  as  pledged  and  conditioned  in 
1844! 

"Finally,  ^in  the  occurrence  of  the  above  speci- 
fied contingencies^ — all  of  them,  of  course — when 
even  the  mathematical  improbabilities  in  the  case 
must  have  amounted  to  an  indefinite  postponement 
of  the  w^hole  question  in  the  minds  of  the  body 
thus  legislating — then  the  Bishops  are  'requested' 
to  bring  the  matter  before  the  Annual  Conferences ! 
And  suppose  the  Annual  Conferences  consented 
to  an  arbitration,  and  'eminent  legal  counsel'  ad- 
vised against  it,  in  that  event,  of  course.  Agents 
would  not  act  upon  the  permission  of  the  Annual 
Conference,  and  the  whole  would  be  a  nullity.  Or, 
suppose  counsel  and  Agents  went  for  arbitration 
under  the  qitasi  grant  of  the  General  Conference, 
without  consulting  the  Annual  Conferences,  then 
by  the  declared  judgment  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, we  should  have  a  nullity  again,  as  the  right 
is  assumed  to  be  in  the  Annual  Conferences  ex- 
clusively. There  is  no  ground  of  trust  in  itny 
respect  in  which  the  subject  is  presented,  upon 
which  the  South  can  repose  without  the  fair  prob- 
ability of  being  farther  deceived.  Say  that  the 
Annual  Conferences  consent  to  arbitration  in  1349, 


576  Organization  of  the 

what  reason  have  we  to  believe  they  would  not 
reverse  the  decision  in  1850  ?  They  promised  an 
equitable  division  of  the  property  with  us  through 
their  ^supreme'  representative  council  in  1844, 
and  denied  the  obligation  in  1845,  and  how  far 
will  this  go  to  show  they  are  likely  to  keep  faith 
in  future  ?  Or  if  thet/  should,  what  security  have 
we  that  the  next  Northern  General  Conference 
would  not  undo  the  whole,  and  declare  it  ^null  and 
void,'  should  the  arbitration  be  favorable  to  the 
South?  We  had  their  public  pledge  in  1844,  and 
have  found  it  good  for  nothing;  and  what  is  going 
to  make  it  any  better  in  1848,  or  subsequently? 
Must  the  fact  that  we  have  been  deceived  by  them 
once,  be  received  as  a  good  reason  why  we  shall 
not  be  a  second  time?  What  can  be  seen  or  found 
in  all  this  to  give  us  confidence?  We  contend 
with  a  party  '  doubly  armed.'  If  they  pledge  and 
promise  us,  as  a  General  Conference,  they  release 
themselves  in  Annual  Conference,  where  the  same 
men  reappear  as  a  separate  disinterested  party ! 
The  constituents  refuse  to  be  bound  by  the  official 
acts  of  their  representatives.  The  representatives 
repudiate  their  own  acts,  by  resolving  themselves, 
in  Annual  Conference,  into  the  common  constit- 
uency! We  cannot  trust  men  or  movements  of 
this  description,  and  do  not  intend  to  be  deceived 
by  either  any  farther.  The  General  Conference 
repudiate  because,  as  they  tell  us,  the  Annual 


3L  E.  Church,  South.  ^17 

Conferences  so  decided ;  and  when  we  remind  them 
of  their  dishonored  faith,  they  refer  us  for  remedy 
to  the  Annual  Conferences!  The  nullification 
force  at  Pittsburgh  has  not  alarmed  us  so  much 
as  to  induce  us  to  concede  important  rights  in 
order  to  be  informed  by  arbitrators  whether  we 
have  any!  So  far  from  this,  we  intend  the  move- 
ment shall  be  of  service  to  our  cause.  By  de- 
claring the  Plan  ^null  and  void/  because  'violated' 
by  the  South,  they  admit  the  compact  character  and 
treaty  rights  of  the  instrument,  and  the  nuUifiers 
are  thus  held  to  the  responsibility  of  the  original 
contract,  unless  they  make  good  their  charge  of 
fundamental  violation  by  the  South,  of  the  proba- 
bility of  which  the  reader  by  this  time  will  be 
able  to  judge  pretty  correctly." 

There  were  leading  men  in  the  North,  among 
whom  the  Hon.  Judge  McLean  Avas  prominent, 
who  deprecated  the  course  pursued  by  this  Gen- 
eral Conference.  In  one  of  his  letters  to  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Board  of  Southern  Commissioners  he 
said :  "  My  wish  is  to  recognize  the  South  as  the 
same  Church,  under  a  distinct  organization,  which 
results  from  their  local  institutions — that  there 
be  an  equitable  division  of  the  Church-property, 
and  that  the  same  feeling  of  Christian  fellowship 
and  love  shall  be  cherished  as  before  the  separa- 
tion." 

There  was  no  wish  on  the  part  of  the  South  to 
25 


578  Organization  of  the 

appeal  to  the  civil  court,  while  there  remained  a 
vestige  of  hope  of  settlement  without  such  appeal. 
It  had,  however,  become  evident  that  unless  re- 
dress was  sought  through  this  medium,  the  claims 
of  justice  would  never  be  met. 

On  the  9th  of  September,  1848,  a  meeting  of 
the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  was  held,  and  the  following  ex- 
planatory statement  and  resolution  were  unani- 
mously adopted — Bishops  Soule,  Andrew,  Capers, 
and  Paine,  and  the  Rev.  John  Early,  Book  Agent, 
being  present  and  consenting : 

The  Commissioners  having  been  strongly  im- 
pressed for  the  last  four  years  with  the  apprehen- 
sion that  no  fair  and  equitable  settlement  of  the 
property  question  between  the  Northern  and 
Southern  divisions  of  the  Church  could  be  had 
without  an  appeal  to  legal  process,  had  purposed 
bringing  suit  in  conformity  with  the  instructions 
under  which  they  acted,  early  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  late  Northern  General  Conference, 
should  that  body  fail  to  take  any  conclusive  action 
in  the  premises,  and  w^ere  only  deterred  from  doing 
so  by  the  attempt  of  that  body  to  secure  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Church  and  public  opinion  to  a  mode 
of  settlement  in  contravention  of  the  Plan  of 
Separation,  and  to  which  the  Southern  Commis- 
sioners could  not  consent  without  admitting  the 


M,  E.  Church,  South,  579 

invalidity  of  that  instrument;  and  having  waited 
nearly  four  months,  in  deference  to  what  public 
opinion  might  require  of  us,  and  in  courtesy  to 
the  adverse  party,  without  having  received  any 
proposition  from  the  Church,  North,  the  Northern 
General  Conference  having  avowed  want  of  au- 
thority to  act  in  the  case,  and  having  failed  to 
secure  the  constitutional  majority  of  two-thirds 
preparatory  to  a  change  of  the  restriction,  pleaded 
as  a  barrier  to  action,  and  without  which  no  change 
of  the  restriction  can  be  even  recommended  by  the 
General  Conference;  and  action  having  been  had 
by  several  of  the  Northern  Annual  Conferences 
authorizing  the  opinion  that  the  requisite  three- 
fourths  majority  of  their  members  would  never 
consent  to  any  mode  of  settlement  to  which  the 
South  could  consent  without  the  forfeiture  of  impor- 
tant rights;  these  Conferences,  moreover,  having 
failed  at  their  recent  sessions  to  make  any  move- 
ment toward  a  change  of  the  sixth  restriction,  and 
several  Annual  Conferences,  South,  as  well  as  in- 
dividual claimants,  having  intimated  a  determina- 
tion to  seek  legal  redress  independently  of  the 
Commissioners  unless  they  proceed  to  bring  suit — 
the  long-neglected  claims  of  the  superannuated 
ministers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children,  upon 
which  many  of  them  have  to  rely  for  subsistence 
almost  exclusively,  being  extremely  urgent — the 
Church,  South,  being  unwilling  to  create  another 


580  Organization  of  the 

similar  fund  until  it  is  known,  after  fair  legal  trial, 
that  our  equitable  share  of  the  existing  fund  can- 
not be  recovered;  and  as  arbitration  is  spoken  of 
not  in  fulfillment  of  the  contract  between  the  par- 
ties, but  as  a  consequence  of  its  denial  and  repu- 
diation, the  adverse  party  thus  seeking  to  avail 
themselves  of  a  false  issue  deeply  injurious  to  the 
South  as  a  mode  of  settlement,  and  to  w^hich  the 
Southern  Commissioners  had  explicitly  informed 
them  they  could  not  submit;  and  having  informed 
the  Rev.  George  Lane,  the  principal  Book  Agent, 
North,  at  his  own  request  in  May  last,  that  we  could 
not  under  our  instructions  consistently  delay  bring- 
ing suit  to  a  period  later  than  the  date  of  the  action 
now  had ;  and  believing  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence had  no  authority  or  control  of  any  kind  over 
the  property  question,  except  in  accordance  with 
the  conditions  of  the  contract,  as  they  had  by 
special  provision  and  transfer  at  the  session  of 
1844  placed  the  entire  settlement  of  the  whole 
question  in  the  hands  of  Agents  and  Commission- 
ers ;  and  regarding  the  action  of  the  late  General 
Conference  in  their  attempt  at  the  destruction 
of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  and  the  substitution 
of  a  new  and  adverse  mode  of  settlement,  placing 
in  jeopardy  rights  and  claims  previously  admitted 
and  provided  for,  as  a  gross,  unlawful  trespass, 
and,  therefore,  null  and  void  in  all  its  aspects 
and  bearings — for  these  reasons,  in   connection 


31.  E.  Church,  South.  581 

with  the  facts  and  reasonings  of  the  foregoing 
Appeal,  of  which  this  brief  statement  and  the 
accompanying  resolution  form  a  part  —  there- 
fore, deeply  regretting  the  necessity  of  the  meas- 
ure, but  deeming  it  important  to  the  interests  in- 
volved. 

Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  and  necessary,  in 
view  of  the  rights  and  interests  in  controversy, 
that  the  necessary  suits  be  instituted  as  soon  as 
practicable,  for  the  recovery  of  the  funds  and 
property  falling  due  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  under  the  contract  of  the  Plan  of 
Separation,  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1844.  H.  B.  Bascom, 

A.  L.  P.  Green, 
"    S.  A.  Latta.* 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  property  to 
which  the  South  would  be  entitled  under  the  Plan 
of  Separation.  The  first  suit  was  brought  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  against  George  Lane  and 
others,  for  a  division  of  the  Book  Concern  in  that 

*As  H.  B.  Bascom  did  not  reach  Pittsburgh  until  the  13th 
of  May,  Dr.  Pierce  was  in  due  form  substituted  in  his  place 
ad  interim,  and  his  name  accordingly  appended  to  a  com- 
munication addressed  to  the  General  Conference.  Dr.  Latta 
being  prevented  by  extreme  illness  from  meeting  the  Com- 
missioners in  Pittsburgh  in  May,  1848,  the  Kev.  C.  B.  Par^ 
sons  was  duly  appointed  ad  interim  in  his  stead. 


682  Organization  of  the 

city.  The  ablest  counsel  was  employed  on  both 
sides — for  the  plaintiffs,  D.  Lord,  Hon.  E;everdy 
Johnson,  and  Mr.  Johnson,  Jr. ;  and  for  the  de- 
fendants, Hon.  Rufus  Choate,  George  Wood,  and 
E.  L.  Fancher. 

The  case  was  tried  before  the  Hon.  Judges  Nel- 
son and  Betts.  It  was  opened  on  the  19th  of 
May,  1851,  by  Mr.  Lord.  The  speeches  on  both 
sides  of  the  question  were  distinguished  for  their 
clearness  and  logical  force.  Every  argument  that 
could  be  brought  to  bear  was  employed,  every 
proof  was  marshaled.  The  pleadings  were  closed 
on  the  29th  of  May  by  Mr.  Johnson,  Jr.  The 
whole  country  felt  an  interest  in  the  decision,  yet 
no  one  doubted  the  result. 

On  the  26th  of  November,  1851,  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of 
New  York  caused  the  decree  to  be  entered,  or- 
dering to  be  transferred  to  the  Agents  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  their  j^roj^or- 
iion  of  the  property  of  the  New  York  Book  Con- 
cern, including  both  capital  and  property,  and  the 
Clerk  of  the  Court  was  instructed  to  ascertain  the 
amount  and  value  of  the  property.  Exceptions 
were  taken  to  his  report,  the  Court  not  agreeing 
on  some  points,  and  the  case  was  certified  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  for  decision. 

The  suit  for  a  division  of  the  Book  Concern  in 
Cincinnati  was  brought  in  the  city  of  Columbus, 


M.  E.  Church,  South.  583 

in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  for  the  District 
of  Ohio.  The  Hon.  Mr.  Stanberry  was  employed 
by  the  plaintiffs,  and  Messrs.  Badger  and  Ewing 
by  the  defendants.  The  Court  was  presided  over 
by  the  Hon.  Judge  Leavitt,  who  rendered  a  de- 
cision in  favor  of  the  defendants.  The  Southern 
Commissioners  appealed  from  the  decision  of  Judge 
Leavitt  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  This  Court  was  composed  of  Chief  Jus- 
tice Taney,  and  Associate  Justices  McLean,* 
Wayne,  Catron,  Daniel,  Nelson,  Greer,  Curtis,  and 
Campbell.  The  cause  was  heard  in  Washington 
City  in  April,  1854,  and  was  decided  in  favor  of 
the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  without  any  dissent 
from  any  of  the  Justices.  The  opinion  of  the 
Court  w^as  delivered  by  Judge  Nelson,  April  25, 

1854.t 

The  M.  E.  Church,  South,  also  claimed  an  in- 
terest in  the  Chartered  Fund,  which  was  located 
in  Philadelphia,  which  was  paid  over  to  the  Agents 
without  recourse  at  law. 

From  these  several  sources  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  received  over  three  hundred 
thousand  dollars,  namely,  from  the  New  York  Book 
Concern,  one  hundred  and  ninety- one  thousand 
dollars;  from  the  Cincinnati  Book  Concern,  ninety- 

*  Judge  McLean  did  not  sit  in  the  case. 

t  See  Appendix  D,  for  the  Decision  of  the  Court. 


584  Organization  of  the 

three  thousand  dollars;  and  from  the  Chartered 
Fund,  seventeen  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
twelve  dollars  and  ninety-five  cents. 

Before  we  close  this  chapter,  we  propose  to  in- 
vite attention  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  antl  briefly  to  view  its  position,  duty,  and 
prospects.  Forming  a  new  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion, the  Southern  Methodists  published  to  the 
world  the  grounds  on  which  they  had  separated 
from  the  Northern  Division.  They  believed  that 
an  impartial  tribunal  would  justify  the  course  they 
had  pursued,  and  that  the  faithful  chronicler  of  the 
history  of  Methodism  would  accord  to  them  purity 
of  purpose.  They  established  no  new  Church,  but 
simply  brought  the  Church  of  which  they  were 
members  under  a  separate  jurisdiction,  making  no 
change  in  doctrines,  and  taking  the  same  Disci- 
pline, changing  it  only  so  far  as  to  conform  it  to 
the  new  organization. 

A  vast  field,  already  white  unto  the  harvest, 
spread  out  before  them,  commanding  their  untiring 
energies  and  earnest  devotion. 

At  the  time  of  the  division  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  fifteen  Annual  Conferences,  em- 
bracing all  the  Southern  and  South-western  States, 
with  the  exception  of  Maryland,  and  comprising 
a  membership  of  329,057  white  and  118,904 
colored,  making  a  total  of  447,961  persons, 
adhered  to  the  fortunes  of  the  M.   E.  Church, 


M.  E,  Church,  South.  685 

South.  In  addition  to  these,  the  Indian  Mission 
Conference,  embracing  the  Cherokee,  Choctaw, 
Chickasaw,  and  Creek  tribes,  occupying  a  territory 
bounded  by  Kansas  on  the  North,  by  Texas  on  the 
South,  by  Arkansas  on  the  East,  and  on  the  West 
by  the  grand  prairies  which  stretch  away  to  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  with  an  aggregate  population  of 
fifty  thousand,  and  a  membership  of  two  thousand 
nine  hundred  and  seventy-eight,  identified  them- 
selves with  the  Southern  branch  of  Methodism. 
Provision  was  also  made  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1846  for  the  establishment  of  a  mission  in 
China. 

These  were  the  fields  which,  under  the  blessing 
of  Heaven,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
was  pledged  to  cultivate.  The  work  was  vast,  and 
the  responsibility  that  assumed  it  was  great. 

No  department  of  the  work  of  the  Christian 
ministry  has  ever  been  more  difficult  than  the 
planting  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  among  the 
Indians.  They  had  been  so  often  and  so  cruelly 
wronged  by  the  white  man,  who  traded  with  their 
tribes,  that  they  looked  with  distrust  on  the  men 
who  went  among  them  to  dispense  the  word  of 
life. 

If  the  task  of  implanting  the  great  truths  of 
Christianity  in  the  mind  of  the  Indian  was  diffi- 
cult, it  was  not  more  so  than  the  religious  instruc- 
tion of  the  negro  was  delicate  and  important.  No 
25* 


686  Organization  of  the 

"work  was  ever  intrusted  to  the  Christian  ministry 
that  required  greater  devotion  and  skill.  Scat- 
tered throughout  the  territory  occupied  by  the  M. 
E.  Church,  South,  and  predominating  in  numerical 
strength  in  some  of  the  Gulf  States,  the  negro  had 
peculiar  claims  on  the  sympathy  of  the  Church, 
South.  It  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  Meth- 
odist ministry  were  not  responsible  for  the  exist- 
ence of  slavery  in  the  Southern  and  South-western 
States.  It  antedated  Methodism  in  the  South, 
and  owed  its  existence  there  to  New  England. 
Negro  slavery  was  introduced  into  the  colonial 
government  by  Great  Britain  previous  to  the 
Revolutionary  war.  Subsequent  to  that  event, 
the  African  slave-trade  was  carried  on,  by  the  en- 
terprising Puritan,  until  the  meeting  of  the  Con- 
vention in  1789,  at  which  time  a  Constitution  was 
secured  to  the  United  States  Government.  Pre- 
vious to  this  period,  all  the  Northern  States  recog- 
nized the  right  to  ownership  in  slaves,  and,  with  a 
single  exception,  were  slave  States.  During  the 
Convention,  before  the  Constitution  was  adopted, 
the  question  of  slavery  was  freely  discussed  in 
that  body,  and  the  African  slave-trade  condemned 
in  no  unmistakable  terms.  A  majority  of  the 
representatives  from  the  Southern  States  advo- 
cated the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  at  once,  as 
at  war  with  every  feeling  of  humanity ;  but  the 
far-seeing  Puritans,  holding  the  balance  of  power  in 


M,  E.  Church,  South.  587 

that  body,  pleaded  and  voted  for  the  continuance 
of  the  inhuman  practice.  They  succeeded  in  their 
eiforts,  and  secured  the  passage  of  an  act  author- 
izing the  continuance  of  the  traffic  until  1808. 
Language  cannot  portray  the  energy  displayed  by 
New  England  during  these  nineteen  years,  in  the 
prosecution  of  this  work  of  human  misery.  Ves- 
sel after  vessel  was  fitted  up,  manned  and  sent 
out  on  its  merciless  cruise,  and  landing  on  the 
coast  of  Africa,  the  unsuspecting  negro  was  de- 
coyed on  board,  fettered  with  irons,  subjected  to 
every  cruelty  and  torture,  and  in  the  most  heartless 
manner  was  torn  from  country,  and  kindred,  and 
home.  The  tears,  the  groans,  the  agony  of  these 
poor  sufferers  failed  to  find  one  chord  of  sympa- 
thy in  the  hearts  of  their  cruel  captors.  The 
upturned  faces  of  the  suffering  negro,  pleading  for 
pity,  could  find  no  echo  in  the  bosom  of  the  New 
Englander.  During  all  the  years  allowed  for  this 
unholy  traffic  to  be  carried  on,  their  vessels 
plowed  the  seas,  burdened  with  human  groans 
and  laden  with  human  woes.  The  traffic,  how- 
ever, brought  wealth,  arid_  money  was  their  god,.. 
In  the  meantime  it  was  discovered  that  slave 
labor  was  not  remunerative  in  the  Northern  States, 
and  provision  was  made  by  legislative  enactments 
for  the  gradual  emancipation  of  the  negro.  The 
cotton  States,  however,  presented  a  market,  and 
instead  of  receiving  the  benefits  of  emancipation, 


588  Organization  of  the 

in  too  many  instances  the  negro  was  sold  by  his 
owner  into  perpetual  servitude,  who,  putting  into 
his  pocket  "the  price  of  blood,"  walked  through 
the  halls  of  his  palatial  home,  or  reclined  in  his 
cushioned  pew  in  the  house  of  God,  and  said, 
"God,  I  thank  thee,  that  I  am  not  as  other 
men ! 

These  negroes  in  the  South  had  increased  to 
millions,  and  to  them  the  M.  E.  Church,  South, 
had  a  special  mission.  In  the  Northern  States 
no  attention  had  been  bestowed  on  their  religious 
instruction.  Pagans  in  their  native  land,  under 
Puritan  tutelage  they  remained  pagans.  In  the 
North  they  had  been  subjected  to  a  discipline  re- 
markably severe,  and,  under  the  rigors  of  cruel 
masters,  they  had  droned  away  an  existence 
scarcely  worth  preserving.  Without  religious  in- 
struction, they  had  never  been  told  of  a  higher 
destiny,  of  an  immortality  of  bliss  beyond  the 
grave.  They  were  simply  used  to  increase  the 
wealth  of  their  masters,  and  when  no  longer  prof- 
itable to  Northern  capitalists,  they  were  sold  to 
the  South. 

In  the  South,  too,  the  master,  in  many  places, 
had  serious  apprehensions  from  the  efforts  to  im- 
part religious  instruction  to  his  slaves.  The 
Northern  man  had  so  frequently  endeavored,  under 
the  guise  of  a  religious  teacher,  to  decoy  the  slave 
from  his  owner,  that  the  ministers  and  the  gospel 


M,  E,  Church,  South.  589 

were  alike  distrusted.  To  save  this  unfortunate 
race  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  was 
specially  called. 

Methodism  occupied  a  most  commanding  posi- 
tion within  the  territory  of  the  Southern  Organi- 
zation. A  reference  has  been  made  already  to  a 
white  membership  of  more  than  three  hundred 
thousand  who  worshiped  at  its  altars.  To  care  for 
these,  and  to  bring  others  into  the  fold,  belonged 
to  its  mission.  At  home  the  field  to  be  occupied 
was  large  and  important,  while  abroad  the  Celes- 
tial Empire  was  commanding  its  energies.  For 
the  fidelity  with  which  these  trusts  have  been 
guarded,  the  thousands  who  have  crowded  its 
altars,  many  of  whom  have  safel}^  passed  over  the 
"last  river,"  are  its  witnesses. 


APPENDIX. 


A. 


LIST  OF  DELEGATES  OF  THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE 

OF  1844. 

New  York  Conference.  —  Nathan  Bangs,  Stephen  Olin,  Phineas 
Rice,  Charles  W.  Carpenter,  George  Peck,  John  B.  Stratton,  Peter  P. 
Sandford,  Fitch  Reed,  Samuel  D.  Ferguson,  Stephen  Martindale,  Mar- 
vin Richardson. 

Providence  Conference. — John  Lovejoy,  Frederick  Upham,  Sanford 
Benton,  Paul  Townsend. 

New  England  Conference. — James  Porter,  Dexter  S.  King,  Phineas 
Crandall,  Charles  Adams,  George  Pickering. 

Maine  Conference. — Moses  Hill,  Ezekiel  Robinson,  Daniel  B.  Ran- 
dall, Charles  W.  Morse,  John  Hobart,  Heman  Nickerson,  George 
Webber. 

New  Hampshire  Conference. — Elihu  Scott,  Jared  Perkins,  Samuel 
Kelly,  Schuyler  Chamberlain,  John  G.  Dow,  Justin  Spaulding,  Charles 
D.  Cahoon,  William  D.  Cass. 

Troi/  Conference. — Truman  Seymour,  John  M.  Wever,  James  Covel, 
Tobias  Spicer,  Seymour  Coleman,  James  B.  Houghtaling,  Jesse  T. 
Peck. 

Black  River  Conference. — Albert  D.  Peck,  Aaron  Adams,  Gardner 
Baker,  W.  W.  Ninde. 

Oneida  Conference. — John  M.  Snyder,  Silas  Comfort,  Nelson  Rounds, 
David  A.  Shepherd,  Henry  F.  Row,  Elias  Bowen,  David  Holmes,  Jr. 

Genesee  Conference.  —  Glezen  Fillmore,  Samuel  Luckey,  Allen 
Steele,  Freeborn  G.  Hibbard,  Schuyler  Seager,  Asa  Abell,  William 
Hosmer,  John  B.  Alverson. 

Erie  Conference. — John  J.  Steadman,  John  Bain,  George  W.  Clarke, 
John  Robinson,  Timothy  Goodwin. 

(591) 


592  APPENDIX. 

Pittshurgh  Conference. — William  Hunter,  Homer  J.  Clark,  John 
Spencer,  Simon  Elliott,  Eobert  Boyd,  Samuel  Wakefield,  James  Drum- 
mond. 

Ohio  Conference. — Charles  Elliott,  William  H.  Raper,  Edmund  W. 
Sehon,  Joseph  M.  Trimble,  James  B.  Finley,  Leonidas  L.  Hamline, 
Zechariah  Connell,  John  Ferree. 

North  Ohio  Conference.  —  Edward  Thompson,  John  H.  Power, 
Adam  Poe,  Elmore  Yocum,  William  Ptunnells. 

Michigan  Conference. — George  Smith,  Elijah  Crane,  Alvan  Billings, 
John  A.  Baughman. 

Indiana  Conference. — Matthew  Simpson,  Allen  Wiley,  E.  R.  Ames, 
John  Miller,  Calvin  W.  Ruter,  Aaron  Wood,  Augustus  Eddy,  James 
Havens. 

Rock  River  Conference. — Bartholomew  Weed,  John  Sinclair,  Henry 
W.  Reed,  John  T.  Mitchell. 

Illinois  Conference.  —  Peter  Akers,  Peter  Cartwright,  Jonathan 
Stamper,  John  Vancleve,  Newton  G.  Berryman. 

Missouri  Conference. — William  W.  Redman,  William  Patton,  Je- 
rome C.  Berryman,  James  M.  Jameson. 

Kentucky  Conference. — Henry  B.  Bascom,  William  Gunn,  Hubbard 
H.  Kavanaugh,  Edward  Stevenson,  Benjamin  T.  Crouch,  George  W. 
Brush. 

Holston  Conference. — Elbert  F.  Sevier,  Samuel  Patton,  Thomas 
Stringfield. 

Tennessee  Conference. — Robert  Paine,  John  B.  McFerrin,  A.  L.  P. 
Green,  Thomas  Maddin. 

Memphis  Conference. — George  W.  D.  Harris,  Samuel  S.  Moody, 
Wm.  McMahon,  Thomas  Joyner. 

Arkansas  Conference. — John  C.  Parker,  William  P.  Ratcliffe,  An- 
drew Hunter. 

Texas  Conference. — Littleton  Fowler,  John  Clark. 

Mississippi  Conference. — William  Winans,  Benjamin  M.  Drake,  John 
Lane,  Green  M.  Rogers. 

Alabama  Conference. — Jesse  Boring,  Jefferson  Hamilton,  William 
Murrah,  Greenbury  Garrett. 

Georgia  Conference. — George  F.  Pierce,  William  J.  Parks,  Lovick 
Pierce,  John  W.  Glenn,  James  E,  Evans,  A.  B.  Longstreet. 

South  Carolina  Conference. — William  Capers,  William  M.  Wight- 
man,  Charles  Betts,  Samuel  Dunwody,  Hugh  A.  C.  Walker. 

North  Carolina  Conference. — James  Jameson,  Peter  Doub,  Bennett 
T.  Blake. 


APPENDIX.  693 

Virginia  Conference. — John  Early,  Thomas  Crowder,  William  A. 
Smith,  Leroy  M.  Lee. 

Baltimore  Conference. — Henry  Slicer,  John  A.  Collins,  John  Davis, 
Alfred  Griffith,  John  A.  Gere,  John  Bear,  Nicholas  J.  B.  Morgan, 
Thomas  B.  Sargent,  Charles  B.  Tippett,  George  Hildt. 

Philadelphia  Conference. — John  P.  Durbin,  Thomas  J.  Thompson, 
Henry  White,  Ignatius  T.  Cooper,  Levi  Scott,  William  Coop-er. 

New  Jersey  Conference. — Isaac  Winner,  John  S.  Porter,  John  K. 
Shaw,  Thomas  Neal,  Thomas  Sovereign. 


ACTION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  CONFERENCES  IN 
REGARD  TO  THE  DIVISION  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


KENTUCKY  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  the  division 
of  the  Church  into  two  separate  General  Conference  jurisdictions  and 
kindred  subjects,  have  had  the  same  under  serious  consideration,  and 
beg  leave  to  report: 

That,  enlightened  as  the  Conference  is  presumed  to  be  on  the  merits 
of  the  very  important  subject  upon  which  your  committee  have  been 
called  to  act,  it  was  not  deemed  expedient  to  delay  this  report  by  an 
elaborate  and  argumentative  investigation  of  the  matters  committed 
to  them,  in  their  various  relations,  principles,  and  bearings;  they, 
therefore,  present  the  result  of  their  deliberations  to  the  Conference 
by  offering  for  adoption  the  following  resolutions : 

1.  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  deliberate  judgment  of  this  Conference 
that  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference,  virtually  deposing 
Bishop  Andrew,  and  also  their  action  in  confirming  the  decision  of 
the  Baltimore  Conference,  in  the  case  of  the  E,ev.  F.  A.  Harding,  are 
not  sustained  by  the  Discipline  of  our  Church,  and  that  we  consider 
those  proceedings  as  constituting  a  highly  dangerous  precedent. 

2.  Resolved,  That  we  deeply  regret  the  prospect  of  division  grow- 
ing out  of  these  proceedings,  and  that  we  do  most  sincerely  hope  and 
pray  that  some  effectual  means,  not  inconsistent  with  the  interests 
and  honor  of  all  concerned,  may  be  suggested  and  devised  by  wbich 
BO  great  a  calamity  may  be  averted,  and  to  this  end  we  recommend 
that  our  societies  be  freely  consulted  on  the  subject. 

3.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  holding  of  a  Convention  of 
delegates  from  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  in  the  city 

(594) 


APPENDIX.  595 

of  Louisville,  on  the  first  day  of  May  next,  agreeably  to  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  Southern  and  South-western  delegates  in  the  late 
General  Conference ;  and  that  the  ratio  of  representation  proposed 
by  said  delegates — to  wit,  one  delegate  for  every  eleven  members  of 
Conference — be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  adopted ;  and  that  this  Confer- 
ence will  elect  delegates  to  the  proposed  Convention  upon  said  basis. 

4.  Resolved,  That  should  a  division  be  found  to  be  indispensable, 
the  delegates  of  this  Conference  are  hereby  required  to  act  under  the 
following  instructions,  to  wit :  that  the  Southern  and  South-western 
Conferences  shall  not  be  regarded  as  a  secession  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  but  that  they  shall  be  recognized  in  law,  and  to 
all  intents  and  purposes,  as  a  coordinate  branch  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  simply  acting 
under  a  separate  jurisdiction.  And  farther,  that  being  well  satisfied 
with  the  Discipline  of  the  Church  as  it  is,  this  Conference  instruct  its 
delegates  not  to  support  or  favor  any  change  in  said  Discipline  by 
said  Convention. 

5.  Resolved,  That  unless  we  can  be  assured  that  the  rights  of  our 
ministry  and  membership  can  be  effectually  secured  according  to  Dis- 
cipline, against  future  aggressions,  and  reparation  be  made  for  past 
injury,  we  shall  deem  the  contemplated  division  unavoidable. 

6.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  course  of  our  delegates  in  the 
late  General  Conference  in  the  premises,  and  that  we  tender  them  our 
thanks  for  their  faithful  and  independent  discharge  of  duty  in  a  try- 
ing crisis. 

7.  Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  this  Conference  be  directed  to 
have  these  resolutions  published  in  such  of  our  Church-papers  as  may 
be  willing  to  insert  them. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

M.  M.  Henkle,  Chairman. 

FARTHER   ACTION   IN    REFERENCE   TO  THE  CONTEMPLATED  CONVENTION. 

Resolved,  hy  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference,  That  should  the 
proposed  Convention,  representing  the  Annual  Conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  appointed  to 
assemble  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  the  first  of  May,  1845,  proceed  tc 
a  separate  organization,  as  contingently  provided  for  in  the  resolu- 
tions of  this  body  on  yesterday,  then,  and  in  that  event,  the  Conven- 
tion shall  be  regarded  as  the  regular  General  Conference,  authorized 
and  appointed  by  the  several  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Southern 
division  of  the  Church,  and  as  possessing  all  the  rights,  powers,  and 


696  APPENDIX. 

privileges  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  and  subject  to  the  same  restrictions, 
limitations,  and  restraints. 

Resolved,  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  character  and 
action  of  the  Convention  as  a  General  Conference  proper,  should  a 
separate  organization  take  place,  the  ratio  of  representation  as  now 
found  in  the  second  restrictive  rule,  one  for  every  twenty-one,  shall 
prevail  and  determine  the  number  of  constitutional  delegates,  taking 
and  accrediting  as  such  the  proper  number  from  each  Annual  Con- 
ference first  elected  in  order,  and  that  the  supernumerary  delegates 
be  regarded  as  members  of  the  Convention  to  deliberate,  etc.,  but  not 
members  of  the  General  Conference  proper,  should  the  Convention 
proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South.  Provided,  neverthe- 
less, that  should  any  delegate  or  delegates,  who  would  not  be  excluded 
from  the  General  Conference  proper,  by  the  operation  of  the  above 
regulation  be  absent,  then  any  delegate  or  delegates  present,  not 
admitted  by  said  regulation  as  member  or  members  of  the  constitu- 
tional General  Conference,  may  lawfully  take  the  seat  or  seats  of  such 
absent  delegates,  upon  the  principle  of  the  selection  named  above. 

Resolved,  by  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference,  That  we  respectfully 
invite  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  who  may  feel 
themselves  disposed  to  do  so,  to  be  in  attendance  at  the  contemplated 
Convention,  to  be  held  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  Ky.,  in  May,  1845. 

Resolved,  by  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference,  That  we  appoint  the 
Friday  immediately  preceding  the  day  fixed  for  the  meeting  of  the 
proposed  General  Convention  of  the  delegates  of  the  Conferences,  as 
a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  for  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God  on  tho 
said  Convention. 


MISSOURI  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  a  division  of 
the  Church  into  two  separate  General  Conference  jurisdictions, 
together  with  the  causes  and  circumstances  connected  with  the  same, 
have  bestowed  upon  it,  in  the  most  prayerful  and  religious  manner, 
all  the  time  and  attention  they  could  command  for  the  purpose,  and 
beg  leave  to  present  the  following  as  their  report: 

That,  inasmuch  as  the  Conference  is  presumed  to  be  well  informed 
on  the  merits  of  the  very  important  subject  upon  which  the  commit- 
tee has  been  called  to  act,  it  was  not  deemed  necessary  to  delay  this 
report  by  an  extended  and  argumentative  investigation  of  the  mat- 


APPENDIX.  597 

ters  committed  to  them,  in  their  various  relations,  principles,  and 
bearings;  they  would,  therefore,  present  the  result  of  their  delibera- 
tions to  the  Conference  by  offering  for  adoption  the  following  resolu- 
tions : 

Hesolved,  That  we  have  looked  for  many  years  with  painful  appre- 
hension and  disapproval  upon  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  and  abo- 
lition subject  in  our  General  Conference,  and  now  behold  with  sorrow 
and  regret  the  disastrous  results  which  it  has  brought  about. 

Resolved,  That  while  we  accord  to  the  great  majority  of  our  North- 
ern brethren  the  utmost  purity  of  intention,  and  while  we  would 
carefully  refrain-from  all  harsh  denunciations,  we  are  compelled  to 
pronounce  the  proceedings  of  the  late  General  Conference  against 
Bishop  Andrew  extrajudicial  and  oppressive. 

Resolved,  That  we  deeply  regret  the  prospect  of  separation  grow- 
ing out  of  these  proceedings,  and  that  we  do  most  sincerely  hope  and 
pray  that  some  effectual  means,  not  inconsistent  with  the  interests  and 
honor  of  all  concerned,  may  be  suggested  and  devised  by  which  so 
great  a  calamity  may  be  averted;  and  to  this  end  we  recommend  that 
our  societies  be  freely  consulted  on  this  subject. 

Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  holding  of  a  Convention  of  dele- 
gates from  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city  of 
Louisville,  Ky.,  on  the  first  day  of  May  next,  agreeably  to  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  delegates  from  the  Southern  and  South-western 
Conferences,  in  the  late  General  Conference ;  and  that  the  ratio  of 
representation  proposed  by  said  delegates — to  wit,  one  delegate  for 
every  eleven  members  of  the  Conference — be,  and  the  same  is  hereby, 
adopted  ;  and  that  this  Conference  will  elect  delegates  to  the  proposed 
Convention  upon  said  basis. 

Resolved,  That  our  delegates  act  under  the  following  instructions, 
to  wit:  to  oppose  the  division  of  the  Church,  unless  such  division, 
under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  be  found  to  be  indispensable 
(and  consequently  unavoidable) ;  and  should  such  necessity  be  found 
to  exist,  and  the  division  be  determined  on,  then  and  in  that  event, 
that  the  Southern  and  South-western  Conferences  shall  not  be  regarded 
as  a  secession  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  that  they 
shall  be  recognized  in  law,  and  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  a  coor- 
dinate branch  of  the  Methodi.st  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  simply  acting  under  a  separate  jurisdiction.  And 
farther,  that  being  well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of  the  Church 
as  it  is,  this  Conference  instruct  its  delegates  not  to  support  or  favor 
any  change  in  said  Discipline  by  said  Convention. 


598  APPENDIX. 

Resolved,  That  unless  we  can  be  assured  that  the  rights  of  our  min* 
istry  and  membership  can  be  eflfectually  secured  according  to  the 
Discipline,  against  future  aggressions,  we  shall  deem  the  contem- 
plated division  as  unavoidable. 

Resolved,  That  should  the  proposed  Convention,  representing  the 
Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slave- 
holding  States,  appointed  to  assemble  at  the  city  of  Louisville,  Ky., 
cLo  first  of  May,  1845,  proceed  to  a  separate  organization,  as  contin- 
gently provided  for  in  the  foregoing  resolutions,  then,  in  that  event, 
the  Convention  shall  be  regarded  as  the  regular  General  Conference, 
authorized  and  appointed  by  the  several  Annual  Conferences  of  the 
Southern  division  of  the  Church,  and  as  possessing  all  the  rights, 
powers,  and  privileges  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  subject  to  the 
same  restrictions,  limitations,  and  restraints. 

Resolved,  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  character  and 
action  of  the  Convention  as  a  General  Conference  proper,  should  a 
separate  organization  take  place,  the  ratio  of  representation  as  now 
found  in  the  second  restrictive  rule,  one  for  every  twenty-one,  shall 
prevail  and  determine  the  constitutional  delegates,  taking  and  accred- 
iting as  such  the  proper  num'ber  from  each  Annual  Conference,  first 
elected  in  order,  and  that  the  supernumerary  delegates  be  regarded 
as  members  of  the  Convention  to  deliberate,  but  not  members  of  the 
General  Conference  proper,  should  the  Convention  proceed  to  a  sepa- 
rate organization  in  the  South.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  should 
any  delegate  or  delegates  who  would  not  be  excluded  from  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  proper,  by  the  operation  of  the  above  regulation,  be 
absent,  then  any  delegate  or  delegates  present,  not  admitted  by  said 
regulations  as  a  member  or  members  of  the  constitutional  General 
Conference,  may  lawfully  take  the  seat  or  seats  of  such  absent  dele- 
gates, upon  the  principle  of  selection  named  above. 

Resolved,  That  we  have  read  with  deep  regret  the  violent  proceed- 
ings of  some  of  our  Southern  brethren,  in  their  primary  meetings, 
against  some  of  our  Bishops  and  others ;  and  that  we  do  most  cor- 
dially invite  to  our  pulpits  and  firesides  all  our  Bishops  and  Northern 
brethren  who,  in  the  event  of  a  division,  shall  belong  to  the  North- 
ern Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Resolved,  That  the  preachers  shall  take  up  public  collections  in  all 
their  circuits  and  stations,  some  time  before  the  first  day  of  March 
next,  for  the  purpose  of  defraying  the  expenses  of  the  delegates  to 
the  above-named  Convention,  and  pay  over  the  same  to  the  dele- 


APPENDIX.  599 

gates,  or  the  respective  Presiding  Elders,  so  that  the  delegates  may 
receive  the  same  before  starting  to  the  Convention. 

Wm.  Patton,  E.  Perkins, 

Andrew  Monroe,  T.  W.  Chandler, 

J.  Boyle,  Jas.  G.  T.  Dunleavy, 

W.  W.  Redman,  John  Thatcher. 

John  Glannville, 
The  following  resolutions  were  offered,  and  immediately  adopted 
by  the  Conference: 

Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  course  of  our  delegates  in  their 
action  at  the  late  General  Conference,  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew, 
and  the  part  they  took  in  the  subsequent  acts  of  the  Southern  dele- 
gates, growing  out  of  the  proceedings  of  the  majority,  and  they  are 
hereby  entitled  to  our  hearty  thanks  for  their  manly  course  in  a 
trying  crisis. 

Resolved,  That  we  invite  the  Bishops  of  our  Church,  who  may  feel 
free  to  do  so,  and  they  are  hereby  invited,  to  attend  the  contem- 
plated Convention  at  Louisville,  Ky.  J.  H,  Linn, 

R.  Boyd. 

HOLSTON  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  Church-separa- 
tion and  other  matters  connected  therewith,  would  respectfully  sub- 
mit the  following  report : 

In  common  with  our  brethren  all  over  our  widely-extended  Zion,  our 
hearts  are  exceedingly  pained  at  the  prospect  of  disunion,  growing 
out  of  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  Your  committee  believe  this  action  to  be  extrajudicial, 
and  forming  a  highly  dangerous  precedent.  The  aspect  of  affairs  at 
the  close  of  the  General  Conference  was  indeed  gloomy ;  and  while 
we  have  sought  for  light  from  every  possible  source,  we  cannot  be- 
lieve that  our  Church-papers  are  the  true  exponents  of  the  views  and 
feelings  of  the  whole  South,  or  of  the  whole  North.  We  would  re- 
spect the  opinions  of  our  brethren  everywhere,  but  we  feel  that  we 
shall  not  be  doing  justice  to  ourselves,  the  Church,  or  the  world,  if 
we  do  not  express  independently  and  in  the  fear  of  God,  our  own 
sentiments  on  this  important  subject.  We  are  not  prepared  to  see 
the  Church  of  our  love  and  choice,  which  has  been  so  signally  blessed 
of  God,  and  cherished  by  the  tears,  prayers,  and  untiring  efforts  of 
our  fathers,  lacerated  and  torn  asunder,  without  one  more  effort  to 
bind  up  and  heal  her  bleeding  wounds ;  therefore, 


600  APPENDIX. 

Resolved,  That  we  approve  of  tlie  proposed  Convention  to  be  holden 
at  Louisville,  Ky.,  May  1st,  1845;  and  will  elect  delegates  to  said 
Convention,  according  to  the  ratio  agreed  upt)n  at  the  last  General 
Conference  by  the  Southern  delegates. 

Resolved,  That  the  Conferences  in  the  non-slaveholding  States  and 
Territories  be,  and  they  are  hereby  respectfully  requested  to  elect  one 
delegate  from  each  Annual  Conference  (either  in  Conference  capacity 
or  by  the  Presiding  Elders),  to  meet  with  one  delegate  from  each  of 
the  slaveholding  Conferences,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  Ky.,  on  the 
first  day  of  May,  1845,  to  devise  some  plan  of  compromise.  And  in 
the  event  that  the  non-slaveholding  Conferences,  or  any  number  of 
them,  which,  with  the  slaveholding  Conferences,  shall  make  a  re- 
spectable majority  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  shall  so  elect  dele- 
gates ;  then,  and  in  that  case,  the  delegates  which  we  will  elect  from 
this  Conference  to  the  Louisville  Convention,  shall  appoint  one  of 
their  number  on  said  Committee  of  Compromise.  And  the  Southern 
and  South-western  Conferences  are  respectfully  requested  to  agree  to 
and  act  upon  this  plan. 

Resolved,  That  if  nothing  can  be  effected  on  the  foregoing  plan, 
then  the  delegates  from  this  Conference  are  instructed  to  propose  to 
the  Louisville  Convention  the  following  or  some  similar  plan,  as  the 
basis  of  connection  between  the  two  General  Conferences,  proposed 
in  case  of  separate  organization :  The  said  General  Conferences  shall 
appoint  an  equal  number  of  delegates  (say  ten),  who  shall  meet  to- 
gether in  the  interim  of  the  General  Conferences,  to  whom  shall  be 
referred  for  adjustment  all  matters  of  difference  between  the  two 
General  Conferences,  or  those  Churches  over  which  they  exercise 
jurisdiction,  their  decisions  or  propositions  for  adjustment  to  be  re- 
ferred for  ultimate  action  to  the  General  Conferences  before  men- 
tioned ;  and  when  both  General  Conferences  have  confirmed  their  de- 
cision, it  shall  be  final  and  binding  on  both  parties. 

Resolved,  That  if  both  the  foregoing  propositions  should  fail,  then 
the  delegates  from  this  Conference  are  instructed  to  support  the  Plan 
of  Separation  proposed  by  the  late  General  Conference.  And  in  so 
doing,  we  positively  disavow  secession,  but  declare  ourselves,  by  the 
act  of  the  General  Conference,  a  coordinate  branch  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  And  in  the  event  of  either  the  second  or  third 
proposition  obtaining,  the  delegates  from  this  Conference  are  in- 
structed not  to  favor  any — even  the  least — alteration  of  our  excellent 
Book  of  Discipline,  except  in  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  form  a 
Beparate  organization. 


APPENDIX.  601 

Resolved,  That  our  delegates  to  the  late  General  Conference  merit 
the  warmest  expression  of  our  thanks,  for  their  prudent,  yet  firm, 
course  in  sustaining  che  interests  of  our  beloved  Methodism  in  the 
South. 

Resolved,  That  we  warmly  commend  the  truly  Christian  and  im- 
partial course  of  our  Bishops  at  the  late  General  Conference,  and  we 
affectionately  invite  all  our  Superintendents  to  attend  the  Convention 
to  be  holden  at  Louisville,  Ky. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted,  T.  K.  Catlett, 

T,  SuLLiNS,  A.  H.  Mathes, 

E.  E.  WiLET,  David  Fleming, 

C.  Fulton,  R.  M.  Stevens, 

Jas.  Gumming,  O.  F.  Cunningham. 


TENNESSEE  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  proposed  division  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  two  separate  and  distinct  Gen- 
eral Conference  jurisdictions,  and  kindred  subjects,  having  had  the 
same  under  mature  consideration,  beg  leave  to  submit  the  follow- 
ing: 

Apprised,  as  we  are,  that  the  actions  of  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence, together  with  the  entire  merits  of  the  proceedings  of  that  body, 
leading  to  the  contemplated  separation  of  the  Church,  have  been 
fully  and  fairly  presented  to  our  people,  and  that  both  the  ministry 
and  membership  within  cur  bounds  have,  with  great  solicitude  and 
prayerful  anxiety,  investigated  the  subject  in  its  various  relations, 
principles,  and  bearings,  we  deem  it  entirely  inexpedient  at  present 
to  enter  into  detail  or  to  prepare  an  elaborate  investigation  of  the 
very  important  matters  committed  to  us ;  therefore  your  committee 
present  the  result  of  their  deliberations  to  the  Conference  by  the 
offering  for  your  consideration  and  adoption  the  following  resolu- 
tions : 

1.  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  candid  and  deliberate  judgment  of  this 
Conference  that  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference,  by  which 
Bishop  Andrew  was  virtually  deposed,  as  well  as  their  action  in  con- 
firming the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  the  case  of  the 
Rev.  F.  A.  Harding,  is  not  sustained  by  the  Discipline  of  our  Church, 
and  that  we  consider  such  extrajudicial  proceeding  as  constituting  a 
highly  dangerous  precedent. 

2.  That  under  the  great  affliction  caused  by  these  unfortunate  pro- 

26 


602  APPENDIX. 

ceedings,  we  did  most  ardently  hope  and  pray  that  tlie  calamitous 
consequences  might  have  been  averted.  But  since  the  only  plausible 
plan  of  reconciliation,  the  proposition  unanimously  recommended 
by  our  beloved  Superintendents,  was  put  down  by  the  majority  in 
the  late  General  Conference,  we  honestly  confess  we  see  at  present  no 
prospect  to  avoid  a  separation. 

3.  That  we  approve  the  holding  a  Convention  of  delegates  from  all 
the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city  of  Louisville, 
on  the  first  day  of  May  next,  agreeably  to  the  recommendation  of 
the  Southern  and  South-western  delegates  in  the  late  General  Con- 
ference ;  and  that  the  ratio  of  representation  proposed  by  said  dele- 
gates— to  wit,  one  delegate  for  every  eleven  members  of  Conference 
• — be,  and  the  same  is  hereby  adopted  ;  and  this  Conference  will  elect 
d-elegates  to  the  proposed  Convention  upon  said  basis. 

4.  That  should  a  division  be  found  to  be  indispensable,  the  dele- 
gates of  this  Conference  are  required  to  act  under  the  following  in- 
struction, to  wit:  that  the  Southern  and  South-western  Conferences 
shall  not  be  regarded  as  a  secession  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  but  that  they  shall  be  recognized  in  law,  and  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  as  a  coordinate  branch  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  simply  acting  under  a  sep- 
arate jurisdiction.  And  farthermore,  as  we  are  well  satisfied  with 
the  Discipline  of  our  Church  as  it  is,  this  Conference  instruct  its  dele- 
gates not  to  support  or  favor  any  change  in  said  Discipline  by  said 
Convention,  except  in  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  conform  it  in  its 
economical  arrangements  to  the  new  organization. 

5.  That  unless  we  can  be  well  assured  that  the  rights  of  our  min- 
istry and  membership  can  be  effectually  secured  according  to  Disci- 
pline against  future  aggression,  and  full  reparation  be  made  for  past 
injury,  we  shall  deem  the  contemplated  division  unavoidable. 

6.  That  should  the  proposed  Convention,  representing  the  Annual 
Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding 
States,  appointed  to  assemble  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  the  first  of 
May  next,  proceed  to  a  separate  organization,  as  contingently  pro- 
vided for  in  the  foregoing  resolutions,  then  and  in  that  event  the 
Convention  shall  be  regarded  as  the  regular  General  Conference,  au- 
thorized and  appointed  by  the  several  Annual  Conferences  of  the 
Southern  division  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States,  and  as  possess- 
ing all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
Bubject  to  the  same  constitutional  limitations  and  restrictions. 


APPENDIX.  603 

7.  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  character  and  action, 
of  the  Convention,  as  a  General  Conference  proper,  should  a  separate 
organization  take  place,  the  ratio  of  representation,  as  now  found  in 
the  second  restrictive  rule,  one  for  every  twenty-one,  shall  prevail 
and  determine  the  number  of  constitutional  delegates,  taking  and  ac- 
crediting as  such  the  proper  number  from  the  Annual  Conference 
first  elected  in  order;  and  that  the  supernumerary  delegates  be  re- 
garded as  members  of  the  Convention  to  deliberate,  but  not  members 
of  the  General  Conference  proper,  should  the  Convention  proceed  to 
a  separate  organization  in  the  South.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that 
should  any  delegate  or  delegates,  who  would  not  be  excluded  from 
the  General  Conference  p»roper,  by  the  operation  of  the  above  regu- 
lation, be  absent,  then  any  delegate  or  delegates  present,  not  ad- 
mitted by  said  regulation  as  member  or  members  of  the  constitutional 
General  Conference,  may  lawfully  take  the  seat  or  seats  of  such  ab- 
sent delegates,  upon  the  principle  of  selection  named  above. 

8.  That  we  do  most  cordially  approve  the  course  of  our  delegates 
in  the  late  General  Conference,  in  the  premises,  and  that  we  tender 
them  our  sincere  thanks  for  their  faithful  and  independent  discharge 
of  duty  in  a  trying  crisis. 

9.  That  the  Secretary  of  this  Conference  be  directed  to  have  the 
foregoing  preamble  and  resolutions  published  in  the  South-western 
Christian  Advocate. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted,  F.  E.  Pitts, 

Joshua  Boucher,  F.  G.  Feegusok, 

G.  W.  Dye,  P.  P.  Neely, 

W.  D.  F.  Sawrie,  Jno.  W.  Hanner, 

A.  F.  Dkiskill,  R.  L.  Andrews. 


MEMPHIS  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  the  division  of 
the  Church  into  two  separate  General  Conference  jurisdictions,  and 
all  matters  connected  therewith,  after  solemnly  and  prayerfully  de- 
liberating upon  the  same,  present  the  following  report.  Inasmuch 
as  the  Conference  is  presumed  to  be  well  informed  on  the  merits  of 
the  subject,  we  deem  it  unnecessary  to  consume  time  by  entering  into 
an  extended  and  argumentative  investigation  of  the  various  rela- 
tions, principles,  and  bearings  of  the  same,  but  proceed  at  once  to 
offer  the  following  resolutions  for  the  action  of  the  Conference. 

Resolved,  1.  That  it  is  the  deliberate  judgment  of  this  Conference, 
that  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 


604  APPENDIX. 

Episcopal  Church,  virtually  deposing  Bishop  Andrew,  and  also  their 
action  in  affirming  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference 
in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding,  are  not  sustained  by  the  Dis- 
cipline of  our  Church,  and  that  we  consider  these  proceedings  as  con- 
stituting a  highly  dangerous  precedent. 

2.  That  we  deeply  regret  the  prospect  of  division  growing  out  of 
these  proceedings,  and  do  most  sincerely  and  devoutly  pray  to  the 
great  Head  of  the  Church  that  some  effectual  means,  not  inconsistent 
with  the  interests  of  the  cause  of  Christ,  or  the  honor  of  all  con- 
cerned, may  be  suggested  and  devised,  by  which  so  great  a  calamity, 
may  be  averted,  and  our  long-cherished  union  preserved  and  perpet- 
uated. 

3.  That  we  approve  the  holding  a  Convention  of  delegates  from 
the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city  of  Louis- 
ville, Ky.,  on  the  first  day  of  May  next,  agreeably  to  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  Southern  and  South-western  delegates  in  the 
late  General  Conference ;  and  that  the  ratio  of  representation  pro- 
posed by  said  delegates — to  wit,  one  delegate  for  every  eleven  mem- 
bers of  Conference — be,  and  the  same  is  hereby  adopted ;  and  that 
this  Conference  will  elect  delegates  to  the  proposed  Convention  on 
said  basis. 

4.  That  should  a  division  be  found  to  be  indispensable,  the  dele- 
gates of  this  Conference  are  hereby  required  to  act  under  the  follow- 
ing instructions,  to  wit:  That  the  Southern  and  South-western  Con- 
ferences shall  not  be  regarded  as  having,  by  such  division,  seceded 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  but  they  shall  be  recognized 
in  law,  and  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  a  coordinate  branch  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  simply 
acting  under  a  separate  jurisdiction.  And  farther,  that  being  well 
satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of  the  Church  as  it  now  is,  this  Confer- 
ence instructs  its  delegates  not  to  support  or  favor  any  change  in 
said  Discipline,  by  said  Convention,  only  so  far  as  necessary  to  per- 
fect a  Southern  Organization. 

5.  That  unless  we  can  be  assured  that  the  rights  of  our  ministry 
and  membership  will  be  effectually  secured,  according  to  Discipline, 
against  future  aggressions,  and  full  reparation  be  made  for  past  in- 
jury, we  shall  deem  the  contemplated  division  unavoidable. 

6.  That  should  the  proposed  Convention,  representing  the  Annual 
Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding 
States,  appointed  to  assemble  at  the  city  of  Louisville,  on  the  first 
day  of  May,  1845,  proceed  to  a  separate  organization,  as  contingently 


APPENDIX.  605 

provided  for  in  the  foregoing  resolutions;  then,  and  in  that  event, 
the  Convention  shall  be  regarded  as  the  regular  General  Conference, 
authorized  and  appointed  by  the  several  Annual  Conferences  of  the 
Southern  division  of  the  Church,  and  as  possessing  all  the  rights, 
powers,  and  privileges  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  subject  to 
the  same  restrictions,  limitations,  and  restraints. 

7.  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  character  and  action 
of  the  Convention  as  a  General  Conference  proper,  should  a  separate 
organization  take  place,  the  ratio  of  representation,  as  it  now  stands 
in  the  second  restrictive  rule,  one  for  every  twenty-one,  shall  prevail 
and  determine  the  constitutional  delegates,  taking  as  such  the  proper 
number  from  each  Annual  Conference,  first  elected  in  order,  and  that 
the  remaining  delegates  be  regarded  as  members  of  the  Convention 
to  deliberate,  but  not  members  of  the  General  Conference  proper, 
should  the  Convention  proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the 
South.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  should  any  delegate  or  delegates 
who  would  not  be  excluded  from  the  General  Conference  proper,  by 
the  operation  of  the  foregoing  regulation,  be  absent,  then,  any  dele- 
gate or  delegates  present,  not  admitted  by  said  regulation  as  a  mem- 
ber or  members  of  the  constitutional  General  Conference,  may  law- 
fully take  the  seat  or  seats  of  such  absent  delegates  upon  the  princi- 
ples of  selection  before  named. 

8.  That  we  have  witnessed  with  sorrow  and  disapprobation  alike, 
the  violence  manifested  by  some  at  the  South,  and  the  ultraism  dis- 
played by  others  at  the  North,  and  that  we  regret  exceedingly  that 
any  Annual  Conference  should  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  refuse  to 
concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the  late  General  Conference  to  alter 
the  sixth  restrictive  article ;  nevertheless,  we  shall  entertain  for  our 
brethren  of  the  North  the  feelings  of  Christian  kindness  and  broth- 
erly love. 

9.  That  we  heartily  approve  the  entire  course  pursued  by  our  dele- 
gates at  the  late  General  Conference. 

10.  That  we  cordially  invite  such  of  our  Bishops,  as  may  deem 
it  proper,  to  be  present  at  the  contemplated  Convention  in  Louis- 
ville. 

11.  That  it  be  made  the  duty  of  each  preacher  to  take  up  a  public 
collection  in  every  congregation  under  his  charge,  for  the  purpose  of 
defraying  the  expenses  of  the  delegates  to  the  Convention,  and  that 
such  collections  be  taken  up  previous  to  the  first  Sabbath  in  April 
next,  and  immediately  transmitted  to  some  one  of  the  delegates. 


606  APPENDIX. 

And  that  the  delegates  be  required  to  report  to  the  next  Annual  Con- 
ference the  sums  received  by  them  for  this  purpose,  together  with  the 
amount  expended  by  them  in  attending  said  Convention. 

12.  That  the  Secretary  of  this  Conference  be  instructed  to  forward 
the  foregoing  to  the  South-western  Christian  Advocate  for  publica- 
tion, with  a  request  that  all  other  Church-papers  copy. 

Moses  Brock,  Joseph  Travis, 

Thomas  Smith,  M.  J.  Blackwell, 

J.  T.  Baskerville,        D.  J.  Allen, 
B.  H.  Hubbard,  William  Pearson. 

A.  T.  Scruggs, 


MISSISSIPPI  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  the  contem- 
plated division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have  endeavored 
to  examine  the  subject  carefully,  and  in  a  spirit  of  reliance  upon 
the  teachings  of  the  word  of  God  for  direction. 

Your  committee  can  but  deplore  the  existence  of  such  causes  as 
compel  the  Church  of  our  choice  to  meditate  a  severance  of  that 
union  which  has  so  long  existed,  and  which,  under  God,  has  con- 
tributed so  efficiently  to  the  spread  of  scriptural  holiness  through  these 
lands.  But  we  are  fully  convinced  that  justice  to  ourselves,  as  well 
as  compassion  for  the  slaves,  demand  an  unqualified  disapproval  of 
the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference ;  first,  in  confirming  the  de- 
cision of  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  the  case  of  Rev.  F.  A.  Hard- 
ing ;  and  secondly,  in  virtually  suspending  Bishop  Andrew  from  the 
Episcopacy,  not  only  without  law  or  usage,  but  in  direct  contraven- 
tion of  all  law,  and  in  defiance  of  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1840,  which  provides  "  that  under  the  provisional 
exception  of  the  general  rule  of  the  Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
the  simple  holding  of  slaves,  or  mere  ownership  of  slave-property, 
in  the  States  or  Territories  where  the  laws  do  not  admit  of  emanci- 
pation and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  constitutes 
no  legal  barrier  to  the  election  or  ordination  of  ministers  to  the  va- 
rious grades  of  office  known  in  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  considered  as  operating  any 
forfeiture  of  right  in  view  of  such  election  and  ordination." 

With  the  abstract  question  of  slavery  we  are  not  now  concerned, 
nor  do  we  regard  it  as  a  subject  on  which  the  Church  has  a  right  to 
legislate ;  neither  are  we  disposed  in  this  report  to  state  the  full  ex- 


APPENDIX.  607 

tent  of  our  grievances,  or  to  investigate  the  reasons  which  impose 
upon  us  the  necessity  of  planning  an  amicable  separation.  Your 
committee  deeply  regret  the  injury  which  may  be  inflicted  upon  our 
beloved  Zion  by  the  intemperate  and  unjust  denunciation  of  the  whole 
North  by  those  who  have  occasion  to  complain  of  the  illegal  and  op- 
pressive course  pursued  by  the  majority  of  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence, and  most  earnestly  recommend  the  exercise  of  that  charity 
which  "  suffereth  long  and  is  kind."  Ap  the  result  of  our  prayerful 
examination  of  the  subject  in  all  its  bearings,  we  offer  the  following 
resolutions  for  your  consideration  and  adoption : 

Resolved,  1.  That  the  decision  of  the  late  General  Conference  in 
the  cases  of  Eev,  F.  A.  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew,  was  unauthor- 
ized by  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  that 
a  tame  submission  to  them,  upon  the  part  of  the  Church  in  the  slave- 
holding  States,  would  prevent  our  access  to  the  slaves,  and  expose  us 
to  suspicions  destructive  to  our  general  usefulness. 

Resolved,  2.  That  as  no  authorized  plan  of  compromise  has  been 
suggested  by  the  North,  and  as  all  the  propositions  made  by  the 
Southern  delegates  were  rejected,  we  regard  a  separation  as  inevita- 
ble, and  approve  the  holding  of  a  Convention,  to  meet  in  Louisville, 
Ky.,  on  the  first  day  of  May  next,  agreeably  to  the  recommendation 
of  the  Southern  and  South-western  delegates  to  the  late  General 
Conference ;  and  that  the  ratio  of  representation  proposed  by  said 
delegates — to  wit,  one  delegate  for  every  eleven  members  of  the  An- 
nual Conferences — be,  and  the  same  is  hereby  adopted ;  and  that  this 
Conference  will  elect  delegates  to  the  proposed  Convention  upon  said 
basis.  Provided,  however,  that  if,  in  the  providence  of  God,  any  plan 
of  compromise  which,  in  the  judgment  of  our  delegates,  will  redress 
our  grievances  and  effectually  secure  to  us  the  full  exercise  and  peace- 
able enjoyment  of  all  our  Disciplinary  rights  should  be  proposed  in 
time  to  prevent  disunion,  we  will  joyfully  embrace  it. 

Resolved,  3,  That  our  delegates  to  said  Convention  shall  be  em- 
powered to  cooperate  with  the  delegates  to  said  Convention  from  the 
other  Conferences,  in  adopting  such  measures  as  they  shall  deem  nec- 
essary for  the  complete  organization  of  a  Southern  Church,  provided 
that  it  conform  in  all  its  essential  features  to  the  Discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Resolved,  4.  That  the  course  pursued  by  our  immediate  representa- 
tives in  the  late  General  Conference,  was  and  is  approved  by  us. 

Resolved,  5.  That  the  conciliatory  spirit  evinced  by  our  General 
Superintendents  entitles  them  to  the  unqualified  approbation  of  the 


608  APPENDIX. 

whole  Church,  and  that  we  do  most  cordially  invite  them  to  attend 

the  proposed  Convention, 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted,  D.  0.  Shattuck, 

Wm.  H.  Watkins,  Jno.  G.  Jones, 

B.  Pipkin,  L.  Campbell, 

Jno.  N.  Hamill,  a.  T.  M.  Fly, 

David  M.  Wiggins,  W.  G.  Gould. 


ARKANSAS  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  several  subjects  connected 
with  the  prospective  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
have  had  the  same  under  calm  and  prayerful  consideration,  and  beg 
leave  to  present  the  following  as  the  result  of  their  honest  delibera- 
tions : 

Being  well  convinced  that  the  members  of  this  body  have  not  been 
inattentive  to  the  proceedings  of  the  late  General  Conference,  and 
that  they  have  not  failed  to  derive  some  information  from  the  nu- 
merous addresses  and  communications  that  have  appeared  in  our  pe- 
riodicals, your  committee  have  not  been  disposed  to  waste  their  time, 
nor  insult  your  judgments,  by  detailing  the  many  circumstances 
which,  were  you  differently  situated,  would  require  amplification; 
they,  therefore,  present  to  your  minds,  for  consideration  and  action, 
the  subjoined  resolutions: 

1.  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  decided  opinion  of  this  Conference  that 
the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  does  not  sustain 
the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  in  the  cases  of  Rev.  F.  A. 
Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew. 

2.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  suggestions  of  the  Bishops,  as 
well  as  the  request  of  several  Southern  delegates,  which  contemplated 
the  postponing  of  the  action  of  the  General  Conference,  until  the 
wishes  of  the  whole  Church  could  be  consulted. 

3.  Resolved,  That,  as  we  see  no  probability  that  reparation  will  be 
made  for  past  injuries,  and  no  security  given  that  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  ministry  and  membership  in  the  slaveholding  Con- 
ferences will  be  equally  respected,  we  believe  it  is  the  imperative 
duty,  if  not  the  only  alternative,  of  the  South  to  form  a  separate  or- 
ganization. Nevertheless,  should  honorable  and  satisfactory  propo- 
sitions for  pacification  be  made  by  the  North,  we  shall  expect  our 
delegates  to  favor  the  perpetuation  of  the  union. 

4.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  holding  of  a  Convention  of  dele- 
gates from  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city  of 


APPENDIX.  609 

Louisville,  Ky.,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1845,  agreeably  to  the  rec- 
ommendation of  the  delegates  from  the  Southern  and  South-westeru 
Conferences  in  the  late  General  Conference. 

5.  Resolved,  That  should  the  proposed  Convention,  representing  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  appointed  to 
assemble  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  the  first  day  of  May,  1845,  proceed  to  a 
separate  organization,  as  contingently  provided  for  in  the  foregoing 
resolutions,  then,  in  that  event,  the  Convention  shall  be  regarded  as 
the  regular  General  Conference,  authorized  and  appointed  by  the 
several  Annual  Conferences  in  the  Southern  division  of  the  Church, 
and  as  possessing  all  the  rights,  powers,  and  privileges  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  subject  to  the  same  restrictions,  limitations, 
and  restraints. 

6.  Resolved,  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  character 
and  action  of  the  Convention  as  a  General  Conference  proper,  should 
a  separate  organization  take  place,  the  ratio  of  representation,  as 
now  found  in  the  second  restrictive  rule,  one  for  every  twenty-one, 
shall  prevail  and  determine  the  constitutional  delegates,  taking  and 
accrediting  as  such  the  proper  number  from  each  Annual  Conference, 
first  elected  in  order;  and  that  the  supernumerary  delegates  be  re- 
garded as  members  of  the  Convention  to  deliberate,  but  not  members 
of  the  General  Conference  proper,  should  the  Convention  proceed  to 
a  separate  organization  in  the  South.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that 
should  any  delegate  or  delegates,  who  would  not  be  excluded  from 
the  General  Conference  proper  by  the  operation  of  the  above  regu- 
lation, be  absent,  then  any  delegate  or  delegates  present,  not  ad- 
mitted by  said  regulation  as  a  member  or  members  of  the  constitu- 
tional General  Conference,  may  lawfully  take  the  seats  of  such  ab- 
sent delegates,  upon  the  principle  of  selection  named  above. 

7.  Resolved,  That,  as  we  are  well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  it  is,  we  hereby  instruct  our  dele- 
gates to  said  Convention  not  to  favor  any  change  therein. 

8.  Resolved,  That,  though  we  feel  ourselves  aggrieved,  and  have 
been  wounded,  without  cause,  in  The  house  of  our  friends,  we  have 
no  disposition  to  impute  wrong  motiyes  to  the  majority  in  the  late 
General  Conference,  and  no  inclination  to  indorse  those  vindictive 
proceedings  had  in  some  portions  of  the  South,  believing  it  to  be  the 
duty  of  Christians,  under  all  circumstances,  to  exercise  that  charity 
which  heareth  all  things. 

9.  Resolved,  That  the  preachers  take  up  collections  on  their  fieveral 

26* 


610  APPENDIX. 

circuits  and  stations  at  an  early  period,  and  hand  the  money  col- 
lected to  their  Presiding  Elders,  that  the  delegates  may  receive  the 
whole  amount  collected  before  they  shall  be  required  to  start  for 
Louisville. 

10.  Resolved,  That  we  tender  our  warmest  thanks  to  our  repre- 
sentatives in  the  late  General  Conference  for  the  stand  which  they 
took,  with  others,  in  defense  of  our  disciplinaiy  rights. 

11.  Resolved,  That  the  Bishops  generally  be,  and  they  hereby  are 
requested,  if  it  be  congenial  with  their  feelings,  to  attend  the  Con- 
vention at  Louisville. 

12.  Resolved,  That  we  recommend  to  our  people  the  observance  of 
the  first  of  May  next  as  a  day  of  humiliation  and  prayer,  that  the 
divine  presence  may  attend  the  deliberations  of  the  Convention. 

John  Haerell,  Fountain  Brown, 

J.  B.  Annis,  Jacob  Custer, 

Alexander  Avery,    J.  F.  Teuslow. 


VIRGINIA  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolutions  of  the  late 
General  Conference,  recommending  to  all  the  Annual  Conferences  at 
their  first  approaching  sessions  to  authorize  a  change  of  the  sixth 
restrictive  article,  so  that  the  first  clause  shall  read,  "  They  shall  not 
appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern  nor  of  the  Chartered 
Fund  to  any  purpose  other  than  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  super- 
annuated, and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children, 
and  to  such  other  purposes  as  may  be  determined  on  by  the  votes  of 
two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference,"  and  to  whom 
was  also  referred  the  Address  of  the  Southern  delegates  in  the  late 
General  Conference,  recommending  a  Southern  Convention,  to  be 
held  in  Louisville,  Ky.,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1845,  together  with 
the  proceedings  of  various  primary  and  Quarterly  Conference  meet- 
ings within  the  bounds  of  the  Virginia  Conference  on  the  subject  of 
a  separation  from  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  beg  leave  to  report : 

That,  having  maturely  considered  these  subjects,  they  do  not  deem 
it  necessary  to  present  an  argunient  upon  the  various  topics  submitted 
to  them ;  but  that  the  duty  assigned  them  will  probably  be  more  sat- 
isfactorily accomplished  in  the  following  series  of  resolutions,  viz. : 

Resolved,  1.  That  we  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the  late 
General  Conference  to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  article  of  the  Dis- 
cipline of  our  Church. 


APPENDIX.  611 

Hesolved,  2.  That  from  the  ample  sources  of  information  before 
your  committee  in  numerous  primary  meetings  which  have  been  held 
in  various  charges  within  our  pastoral  limits,  and  the  proceedings  of 
Quarterly-meeting  Conferences,  which  we  have  the  most  sufficient 
reason  to  regard  as  a  fair  and  full  exponent  of  the  mind  and  will  of 
the  membership  upon  the  subject  of  the  action  of  the  recent  General 
Conference,  and  the  propriety  of  division,  we  are  of  opinion  that  it 
is  the  mind  of  the  laity  of  the  Church,  with  no  exception  sufficient 
to  be  regarded  as  the  basis  of  action,  that  whilst  they  seriously  dep- 
recate division,  considered  relatively,  and  most  earnestly  wish  that 
some  ground  of  permanent  union  could  have  been  found,  they  see 
no  alternative,  and  therefore  approve  of  a  peaceable  separation  in 
the  present  circumstances  of  our  condition ;  and  in  this  opinion  and 
this  determination  your  committee  unanimously  concur. 

Resolved,  3.  That  we  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the  South- 
ern delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference,  that  there  be  a  Southern 
Convention,  to  be  held  in  Louisville,  Ky.,  on  the  first  day  of  May, 
1845;  and  in  the  objects  of  this  Convention^  as  is  contemplated  in  the 
Address  of  the  Southern  delegates. 

Resolved,  4.  That  while  we  do  not  propose  to  dissolve  our  connec- 
tion with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  only  with  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  we  are,  therefore, 
entitled  to  our  full  portion  of  all  the  rights  and  privileges  appertain- 
ing to  the  property  of  the  Church.  Nevertheless,  our  delegates  to 
the  Convention  to  be  held  in  Louisville,  Ky.,  in  May,  1845,  are 
hereby  instructed  not  to  allow  the  question  of  property  to  enter  into 
the  calculation  whether  or  not  we  shall  exist  as  a  separate  organiza- 
tion. 

Resolved,  5.  That  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  in  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew  was  in  violation  of  the  provisional  rule  of 
the  Discipline  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  in  derogation  of  the 
dignity  and  authority  of  the  Episcopal  office;  it  was,  therefore, 
equally  opposed  to  the  rights  of  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Church, 
and  of  those  of  the  incumbents  of  the  Episcopal  office.  But  more 
than  this;  it  was  an  efi"ort  to  accomplish,  by  legislative  action,  what 
it  was  only  competent  for  them  to  do,  if  at  all,  by  regular  judicial 
process ;  the  very  attempt  was  an  acknowledgment  that  there  was  no 
rule  of  Discipline  under  which  he  could  either  be  deposed  or  censured, 
and  that  the  General  Conference,  being  unrestrained  by  the  authority 
of  law,  was  supreme.  Thus  both  the  Episcopal  office  and  its  incum- 
bents were  taken  from  under  the  protection   of  the  constitutional 


612  APPENDIX. 

restriction,  and  the  provisional  rule  of  Discipline,  by  which  it  was 
made  a  coordinate  branch  of  the  government,  and  placed  at  the 
caprice  of  a  majority,  which  claims  that  its  mere  will  is  the  law  of 
the  Church. 

Bishop  Andrew,  therefore,  in  refusing  to  resign  his  office,  or  other- 
wise yield  to  this  unwarranted  assumption  of  authority  on  the  part 
of  the  General  Conference,  has  taken  a  noble  stand  upon  the  platform 
of  constitutional  law,  in  defense  of  the  Episcopal  office  and  the  rights 
of  the  South,  which  entitles  him  to  tlie  cordial  approbation  and  sup- 
port of  every  friend  of  the  Church ;  and  we  liereby  tender  him  the 
unanimous  expression  of  our  admiration  of  his  firmness  in  resisting 
the  misrule  of  a  popular  majority. 

Resolved,  6.  That  we  cordially  approve  the  course  of  the  Southern 
and  South-western  delegates  of  the  late  General  Conference,  in  resist- 
ing with  so  much  constancy  and  firmness  the  encroachments  of  the 
majority  upon  the  rights  of  the  South;  and  for  so  faithfully  warning 
them  against  the  tendency  of  those  measures,  which  we  fear  do  inev- 
itably draw  after  them  the  dissolution  of  our  ecclesiastical  union. 
John  Early,  Thomas  Crowdeb,  Jr., 

Wm.  a.  Smith,  Abram  Penn, 

Geo.  \V.  Nolley,  Anthony  Dibrell, 

h.  b.  cowles,  d.  s.  doggett. 

Jos.  H.  Davis, 
The  recommendation  to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  article  was 
concurred  in — eighty-one  in  favor,   and  none  against  it — and  the 
whole  Report  of  the  committee  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the 
Conference. 


NORTH  CAROLINA  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  the  resolution  of  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence respecting  the  alteration  of  the  sixth  restrictive  rule,  the  Report 
of  the  Select  Committee  of  Nine  on  the  Declaration  of  the  Southern 
-delegates,  and  the  Reports  of  numerous  voluntary  meetings,  both  of 
ministers  and  people,  within  the  bounds  of  North  Carolina  Confer- 
ence, were  referred,  beg  leave  to  report: 

Your  committee  deeply  regret  the  division  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  which  the  course  of  the  majority  in  the  late  General 
Conference  renders  not  only  necessary  but  inevitable.  The  unity  of 
the  Church,  so  long  the  boast  and  praise  of  Methodism,  was  a  fea- 
ture greatly  admired,  and  more  than  esteemed,  by  Southern  Meth- 


APPENDIX.  613 

odists.  For  its  promotion  and  preservation  they  were  willing  to 
surrender  any  thing  but  principle — vital  principle.  This  they  could 
not  do!  this  they  dare  not  do!  The  course  of  the  late  General  Con- 
ference demanded  a  submission  on  tlie  part  of  the  ministers  in  the 
slaveholding  Conferences,  which  the  Discipline  did  not  require,  and 
the  institutions  of  the  South  absolutely  forbade.  To  have  yielded, 
therefore,  would  have  opened  a  breach  in  Methodism  wholly  sub- 
versive of  the  Church  and  greatly  mischievous  to  the  civil  commu- 
nity— to  have  yielded  would  have  been  ruin.  This,  therefore,  they 
refused  to  do;  absolutely  refused !  With  the  Discipline  in  their  hands, 
sustained  and  upheld  by  it,  they  protested  against  the  proceedings  of 
the  majority,  with  an  unfaltering  and  manly  voice,  declaring  them 
to  be  not  only  unauthorized,  but  unconstitutional.  The  protesta- 
tion, however,  just  and  legal  as  it  was,  authorized  and  borne  out  by 
the  Discipline,  was  altogether  unavailing.  Nothing  was  left  for  the 
South  to  do  but  to  pass  from  under  the  jurisdiction  of  so  wayward 
a  power  to  the  regulations  and  government  of  our  old,  wholesome, 
and  scriptural  Discipline.  This,  we  sorrow  when  we  say  it,  has 
opened  a  great  gulf — we  fear  an  impassable  gulf — between  the  North 
and  the  South.  This  consolation,  however,  if  no  other,  they  have — 
the  good  Book  of  Discipline,  containing  the  distinctive  features  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  shall  still  lie  on  the  South  side. 
Compelled  by  circumstances  which  could  neither  be  alleviated  nor 
controlled — which  neither  the  entreaties  of  kindness  nor  the  force  of 
truth  could  successfully  resist — we  hesitate  not  to  decide  on  being 
forever  separate  from  those  whom  we  not  only  esteem,  but  love. 
Better  far  that  we  should  suffer  the  loss  of  union,  than  that  thousands 
— yea,  millions — of  souls  should  perish. 

From  the  reports  of  Quarterly-meeting  Conferences,  and  numerous 
voluntary  meetings  within  the  bounds  of  the  North  Carolina  Con- 
ference, both  of  ministers  and  people,  we  feel  assured  that  it  is  the 
mind  of  our  people  and  preachers  fully  to  sustain  the  action  of  the 
Southern  and  South-western  delegates,  as  set  forth  in  the  Declaration 
and  Protest;  and  therefore, 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  time  has  come  for  the  ministers  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States  to  refuse  to  act  ia 
union  with  the  North. 

2.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  proposed  alteration  of  the  sixth 
restrictive  rule  of  the  Discipline. 

3.  Resolved,  That  we-  concur  in  the  recommendation  to  hold  a 
Convention  in  Louisville,  Ky.,  in  May,  1845. 


614  APPENDIX. 

4.  Resolved,  That  this  Conference  elect  delegates  to  said  Convention 
according  to  the  hasis  of  representation  recommended. 

5.  Resolved,  That  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference,  in  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  was  a  violation  of  the  rule  of  Discipline  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  and  derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  the  Episcopal 
office,  by  throwing  it  from  under  the  protection  of  law,  and  exposing 
it  to  the  reproach  and  obloquy  of  misrule  and  lawless  power.  The 
Bishop,  therefore,  acted  justly  and  honorably  in  resisting  such  action 
and  declining  obedience  to  the  resolution  of  said  Conference;  and  for 
thus  guarding  and  respecting  the  rights  of  the  South,  both  of  minis- 
ters and  people,  he  is  entitled  to  our  highest  regards. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted.  H.  G.  Leigh, 

S.  S.  Bryant,  Jas.  Jameson, 

P.  DouB,  Bennet  T.  Blake, 

James  Reid,  D.  B.  Nicholson, 

R,  I.  Caeson,  Wm.  Cakter. 

The  above  report  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Conference. 
On  the  question  of  concurrence  in  altering  the  sixth  restrictive  rule, 
the  vote  was — ayes  58,  nays  none. 


SOUTH  CAROLINA  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  general  subject  of  the 
difficulties  growing  out  of  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference 
on  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  Brother  Harding,  and,  in  particu- 
lar, the  Report  of  the  Select  Committee  on  the  Declaration  of  the 
Southern  and  South-western  delegates  of  the  General  Conference,  as 
adopted  by  the  Conference,  and  the  proceedings  of  numerous  Quar- 
terly Conferences,  and  other  meetings,  in  all  parts  of  our  Annual 
Conference  District,  respectfully  offer  the  following  Report: 

It  appears  to  your  committee,  on  the  evidence  of  numerous  docu- 
ments, and  the  testimony  of  the  preachers  in  open  Conference,  that 
in  all  the  circuits  and  stations  of  this  Conference  District,  the  people 
have  expressed  their  minds  with  respect  to  the  action  of  the  General 
Conference,  and  the  measures  proper  to  be  adopted  in  consequence 
of  that  action.  Resolutions  to  that  effect  have  been  adopted  by  the 
Quarterly  Conferences  of  all  the  circuits  and  stations,  without  any 
exception;  and  in  many,  perhaps  in  most  of  them,  by  other  meetings 
also,  which  have  been  called  expressly  for  the  purpose ;  and  in  some 
of  them,  by  meetings  held  at  every  preaching-place  where  there  was 
a  society.    And  on  all  these  occasions,  there  has  been  but  one  voice 


APPENDIX.  615 

uttered — one  opinion  expressed — from  the  seaboard  to  the  mountaing, 
as  to  the  unconstitutionality  and  injurious  character  of  the  action  in 
the  cases  above  named ;  the  necessity  which  that  action  imposes  for 
a  separation  of  the  Southern  from  the  Northern  Conferences,  and  the 
expediency  and  propriety  of  holding  a  Convention  at  Louisville,  Ky., 
and  of  your  sending  delegates  to  it,  agreeably  to  the  proposition  of 
the  Southern  and  South-western  delegates  of  the  late  General  Con- 
ference. 

Your  committee  also  have  made  diligent  inquiry,  both  out  of 
Conference  and  by  calling  openly  in  Conference,  for  information  from 
the  preachers,  as  to  the  number,  if  any,  of  local  preachers,  or  other 
oflScial  members,  or  members  of  some  standing  among  us,  who  should 
have  expressed,  in  the  meetings  or  in  private,  a  diiferent  opinion 
from  that  which  the  meetings  have  proclaimed.  And  the  result  of 
this  inquiry  has  been,  that,  in  the  whole  field  of  our  Conference  Dis- 
trict, one  individual  only  has  been  heard  to  express  himself  doubt- 
fully as  to  the  expediency  of  a  separate  jurisdiction  for  the  Southern 
and  South-western  Conferences ;  not  eveil  one  as  to  the  character  of 
the  General  Conference  action.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  this  una- 
nimity of  the  people  has  been  brought  about  by  popular  harangues, 
or  any  schismatic  efforts  of  any  of  the  preachers,  or  other  influential 
persons;  but  that  it  has  been  as  spontaneous  as  universal,  and,  from 
the  time  that  the  final  action  of  the  General  Conference  became 
known,  at  every  place.  Your  committee  state  this  fact  thus  formally, 
that  it  may  correct  certain  libelous  imputations  which  have  been  cast 
on  some  of  our  senior  ministers,  in  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Jour- 
nal ;  as  well  as  for  the  evidence  which  it  furnishes  of  the  necessity 
of  the  measures  which  are  in  progress  for  the  relief  of  the  Church  in 
the  South  and  South-west. 

Your  committee  also  consider  it  due  to  state,  that  it  does  not  appear 
that  the  action  of  the  General  Conference,  in  the  cases  of  the  Bishop 
and  of  Brother  Harding,  proceeded  of  ill-will,  as  of  purpose  to 
oppress  us,  nor  of  any  intended  disregard  of  the  authority  of  the 
Scriptures  or  of  the  Discipline,  as  if  to  effect  the  designs  of  a  politico- 
religious  faction,  without  warrant  of  the  Scriptures,  and  against  the 
Discipline  and  the  peace  of  the  Church;  but  they  consider  that 
action  as  having  been  produced  out  of  causes  which  had  their  origin 
in  the  fanatical  abolitionism  of  Garrison  and  others;  and  which, 
being  suffered  to  enter  and  agitate  the  Church,  first  in  New  England 
and  afterward  generally  at  the  North,  worked  up  such  a  revival  of 
the  antislavery  spirit  as  had  grown  too  strong  for  the  restraints  of 


616  APPENDIX. 

either  Scripture  or  Discipline,  and  too  general  through  the  Eastern, 
Northern,  and  North-western  Conferences,  to  be  resisted  any  longer 
by  the  easy,  good-natured  prudence  of  the  brethren  representing 
those  Conferences  in  the  late  General  Conference.  Pressed  beyond 
their  strength,  whether  little  or  much,  they  had  to  give  way;  and, 
reduced  (by  the  force  of  principles  which,  whether  by  their  own 
fault  or  not,  had  obtained  a  controlling  power)  to  the  alternative  of 
breaking  up  the  Churches  of  their  own  Conference  Districts,  or  adopt- 
ing measures  which  they  might  hardly  persuade  themselves  could  be 
endured  by  the  South  and  South-west,  they  determined  on  the  latter. 
The  best  of  men  may  have  their  judgments  perverted;  and  it  is  not 
wonderful  that,  under  such  stress  of  circumstances,  the  majority 
should  have  adopted  a  new  construction  of  both  Scripture  and  Dis- 
cipline, and  persuaded  themselves  that  in  pacifying  the  abolitionists 
they  were  not  unjust  to  their  Southern  brethren.  Such,  however,  is 
unquestionably  the  character  of  the  measures  they  adopted;  and 
which  the  Southern  Churches  cannot  possibly  submit  to,  unless  the 
majority  who  enacted  them  could  also  have  brought  us  to  a  convic- 
tion that  we  ought  to  be  bound  by  their  judgment,  against  our  con- 
sciences and  calling  of  God,  and  the  warrant  of  Scripture,  and  the 
provisions  of  the  Discipline.  But  while  we  believe  that  our  para- 
mount duty  in  our  calling  of  God  positively  forbids  our  yielding  the 
gospel  in  the  Southern  States  to  the  pacification  of  abolitionism  in 
the  Northern — and  the  conviction  is  strong  and  clear  in  our  own 
minds  that  we  have  both  the  warrant  of  Scripture  and  the  plain 
provisions  of  the  Discipline  to  sustain  us — we  see  no  room  to  entertain 
any  proposition  for  compromise,  under  the  late  action  in  the  cases 
of  Bishop  Andrew  and  Brother  Harding,  and  the  principles  avowed 
for  the  maintenance  of  that  action,  short  of  what  has  been  shadowed 
forth  in  the  Report  of  the  Select  Committee  which  we  have  had  under 
consideration,  and  the  measures  recommended  by  the  Southern  and 
South-western  delegates  at  their  meeting  after  the  General  Confer- 
ence had  closed  its  session. 

Your  committee  do,  therefore,  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  fol- 
lowing resolutions : 

1.  Resolved,  That  it  is  necessary  for  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the 
slaveholding  States  and  Territories,  and  in  Texas,  to  unite  in  a  dis- 
tinct ecclesiastical  connection,  agreeably  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Report  of  the  Select  Committee  of  Nine  of  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence, adopted  on  the  8th  day  of  June  last. 

2.  Resolved,  That  we  consider  and  esteem  the  adoption  of  the  Re- 


APPENDIX.  -  617 

port  of  the  aforesaid  Committee  of  Nine  by  the  General  Conference 
(and  the  more  for  the  unanimity  with  which  it  was  adopted)  as 
involving  the  most  solemn  pledge  which  could  have  been  given  by 
the  majority  to  the  minority,  and  the  Churches  represented  by  them, 
for  the  full  and  faithful  execution  of  all  the  particulars  specified  and 
intended  in  that  Keport. 

3.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  of  the  recommendation  of  the  South- 
ern delegates,  to  hold  a  Convention  in  Louisville,  on  the  first  day  of 
May  next,  and  will  elect  delegates  to  the  same  on  the  ratio  recom- 
mended in  the  Address  of  the  delegates  to  their  constituents. 

4.  Resolved,  That  we  earnestly  request  the  Bishops,  one  and  all,  to 
attend  the  said  Convention. 

5.  Resolved,  That  while  we  do  not  consider  the  proposed  Conven- 
tion competent  to  make  any  change  or  changes  in  the  Rules  of  Dis- 
cipline, they  may  nevertheless  indicate  what  changes,  if  any,  are 
deemed  necessary  under  a  separate  jurisdiction  of  the  Southern  and 
South-western  Conferences.  And  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  Conven- 
tion to  resolve  on,  and  provide  for,  a  separate  organization  of  these 
Conferences  under  a  General  Conference  to  be  constituted  and 
empowered  in  all  respects  for  the  government  of  these  Conferences,  as 
the  General  Conference  hitherto  has  been  with  respect  to  all  the 
Annual  Conferences — according  to  the  provisions  and  intention  of 
the  late  General  Conference. 

6.  Resolved,  That  as,  in  common  with  all  our  brethren  of  this  Con- 
ference District,  we  have  deeply  sympathized  with  Bishop  Andrew  in 
his  afflictions,  and  believe  him  to  have  been  blameless  in  the  matter 
for  which  he  has  suffered,  so,  with  them,  we  afi'ectionately  assure 
him  of  our  approbation  of  his  course,  and  receive  him  as  not  the 
less  worthy,  or  less  to  be  honored  in  his  Episcopal  character,  for  the 
action  which  has  been  had  in  his  case. 

7.  Resolved,  That  we  recognize  in  the  wisdom  and  prudence,  the 
firmness  and  discretion,  exhibited  in  the  course  of  Bishop  Soule, 
during  the  General  Conference — as  well  as  in  former  instances  wherein 
he  has  proved  his  devotion  to  the  great  principles  of  constitutional 
right  in  our  Church — nothing  more  than  was  to  be  expected  from  the 
bosom  friend  of  Asbury  and  McKendree. 

8.  Resolved,  That  in  common  with  the  whole  body  of  our  people, 
we  approve  of  the  conduct  of  our  delegates,  both  during  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  and  subsequently. 

9.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the  late 
General  Conference  for  the  change  of  the  sixth  article  of  the  restric- 


618  APPENDIX. 

tive  rules  in  the  Book  of  Discipline,  so  as  to  allow  an  equitable  pro 

rata  division  of  the  Book  Concern.  W.  Capers, 

W.  Smith,  H.  Bass, 

N.  Talley,  H.  a.  C.  Walker, 

C.  Betts,  S.  W.  Capers, 

S.  DuNWODY,  R.  J.  Boyd. 


INDIAN  MISSION  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  action  of  the  late  Gen- 
eral Conference  relating  to  an  amicable  division  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  beg  leave  to  report  the  fol- 
lowing resolutions  for  adoption  by  the  Conference: 

1.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  proposed  alteration  of  the  sixth 
restrictive  article  of  the  Discipline. 

2.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  course  pursued  by  the  minority 
of  the  late  General  Conference. 

3.  Resolved,  That  we  elect  delegates  to  represent  the  Indian  Mis- 
sion Conference  in  the  contemplated  Convention  to  be  held  in  Louis- 
ville, Ky.,  in  May  next. 

4.  Resolved,  That  this  Conference  do  deeply  deplore  the  necessity 
for  division  of  any  kind  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  and 
that  we  will  not  cease  to  send  up  our  prayers  to  Almighty  God  for 
his  gracious  interposition,  and  that  he  may  guide  the  affairs  of  the 
Church  to  a  happy  issue.  J.  C.  Berbyman,  Chairman. 

The  above  report  having  been  read,  was  taken  up  section  by  sec- 
tion, and  disposed  of  as  follows  :  The  first  resolution  was  adopted — 
ayes  14,  nays  1.  The  second  resolution  was  adopted — ayes  11,  nays 
3;  declined  voting,  4.  The  third  resolution  was  adopted — ayes  17. 
The  fourth  resolution  was  adopted — ayes  17.  The  preamble  and 
resolutions  were  then  adopted  by  the  Conference  as  a  whole. 

The  Conference  then  proceeded,  in  accordance  with  the  third  reso- 
lution, to  elect  delegates  to  attend  the  proposed  Convention  in  Louis- 
ville, in  May  next.  On  counting  the  votes,  it  appeared  that  the 
whole  number  of  votes  given  was  twenty-one,  of  which  number 
William  H.  Goode  had  received  twenty,  Edward  T.  Peery  eighteen, 
scattering  four.  Whereupon,  W.  H.  Goode  and  E.  T.  Peery  having 
received  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  given,  were  declared  duly  elected. 
D.  B.  Gumming  was  then  elected  reserve  delegate. 

The  following  resolutions  were  on  the  next  day  unanimously 
adopted  at  the  request  of  the  delegates  elect : 


APPENDIX.  619 

Resolved,  That  in  view  of  the  condition  of  the  Church  at  the  present 
trying  crisis,  the  members  of  this  Conference  will,  when  practicable, 
as  near  as  may  be  at  the  hour  of  twilight,  in  the  evening  of  each 
day,  until  the  close  of  the  approaching  Convention  at  Louisville, 
meet  each  other  at  a  throne  of  grace,  and  devoutly  implore  the  bless- 
ing of  God  upon  our  assembled  delegates  in  the  discharge  of  their 
important  duties. 

Resolved,  That  the  Friday  preceding  the  opening  of  said  Conven- 
tion be  set  apart  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  supplication  to  Almighty 
God  for  the  continued  unity,  peace,  and  prosperity  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church;  and  that  our  members  throughout  this  Conference 
be  requested  to  join  us  in  the  devotions  of  that  day. 

Wm.  H.  Goode, 
E.  T.  Peery. 


GEORGIA  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the  difficulties 
of  the  Church  as  growing  out  of  the  action  of  the  General  Conference 
in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  to  submit  some  recommendations 
to  the  Annual  Conference  for  their  adoption,  beg  leave  to  report: 

The  action  of  the  majority  in  the  last  General  Conference  of  the 
^lethodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Plarding,  has  rendered  it  indispensable  that  the  Conferences 
within  whose  limits  slavery  exists  should  cease  to  be  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  that  body.  They  must  either  abandon  the  people 
collected  under  their  ministry,  and  committed  to  their  pastoral  care, 
and  the  vast  and  widening  field  of  missionary  labor  among  the  slaves — 
a  field  to  which  their  attention  is  imperatively  called  by  their  sym- 
pathies as  Christians,  their  sense  of  ministerial  obligation  as  preachers 
of  the  gospel,  and  their  interests  and  duties  as  citizens — or  they  must 
live  under  the  control  of  an  ecclesiastical  body  separate  and  dis- 
tinct from  and  independent  of  the  Conferences  lying  within  the 
States  and  Territories  where  slavery  is  not  allowed  by  law.  In  view 
of  the  relations  before  stated,  that  distinct  organization  is  required 
by  a  necessity  strict  and  absolute,  and  upon  that  issue  we  place  it 
before  the  Church  and  the  world.  The  exigence  which  brings  it  upon 
us,  arose  not  out  of  our  acts  or  designs;  no  collateral  considerations 
of  expedience  abated  our  zeal  in  withstanding  it;  no  collateral  issues 
upon  points  involved  affected  our  determination  to  maintain  the 
unity  of  the  Church  under  one  organization   as  heretofore  existing; 


620  APPENDIX. 

no  pride  of  opinion,  speculative  differences,  nor  personal  motives 
have  conducted  us  to  this  conclusion.  We  did  not  seek  to  effect  any 
changes  in  the  doctrine  or  discipline  of  our  Church ;  we  did  not  ask 
any  boon  at  the  hands  of  the  General  Conference,  nor  any  exemption 
from  the  operation  of  the  laws  which  were  common  to  the  whole 
Connection ;  and  whatever  consequences  affecting  the  Church,  or  the 
civil  community,  may  result  from  our  movement,  we  confidently  look 
for  acquittal  to  the  judgment  of  posterity,  and  the  decision  of  the 
sober  and  unprejudiced  among  our  contemporaries.  The  General 
Conference  violated  the  law  of  the  Church,  first,  by  confirming  the 
decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  suspending  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hard- 
ing from  his  connection  with  that  Conference  as  a  traveling  preacher 
therein,  because  he  would  not  give  freedom  to  slaves,  which  by  the 
laws  of  the  land  he  could  not  manumit;  and  secondly,  by  passing  a 
resolution  intended  to  inhibit  Bishop  Andrew  from  the  exercise  of 
his  Episcopal  functions  for  the  same  reasons ;  in  both  cases  contrary 
to  the  express  provisions  of  the  Discipline,  which  allow  preachers  to 
hold  slaves  wherever  they  are  not  permitted  by  the  laws  of  the  land 
to  enjoy  freedom  when  manumitted,  and  in  both  cases  striking  an 
effective  blow  at  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  economy  of  Meth- 
odism, as  it  destroys  that  general  itinerancy  of  the  preachers  which 
is  its  most  distinguished  peculiarity ;  for  under  their  decision,  preach- 
ers holding  slaves  in  Conferences  where  by  the  law  of  the  Discipline 
they  are  allowed  so  to  do,  may  not  be  transferred  to  Conferences 
within  whose  limits  slavery  does  not  exist.  By  the  same  decision, 
both  preachers  and  lay-members  holding  slaves  are  thrown  into  an 
odious  and  dishonored  caste,  the  first  deprived  of  office  therefor,  and 
the  religious  character  of  both  impeached  and  thrown  under  suspicion 
thereby ;  to  which  must  be  added,  as  an  evil  not  lightly  to  be  regarded, 
nor  slightly  overlooked,  that,  in  connection  with  the  fanatical  move- 
ments of  abolitionists  in  the  North,  East,  and  West,  it  is  well  fitted 
to  excite  slaves  to  disaffection  and  rebellion,  making  it  imperative 
upon  governments  and  citizens  to  prohibit  all  communication  between 
slaves  and  preachers  who  either  teach  such  doctrine  or  impliedly 
admit  it  to  be  true  by  submitting  to  such  dishonor  and  deprivation. 
Secondly.  That  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  the  General  Confer- 
ference  have  violated  the  Discipline  of  the  Church  and  invaded  per- 
sonal rights,  which  are  secured  by  the  laws  of  every  enlightened 
nation,  if  not  by  the  usages  of  every  savage  people  on  earth.  They 
tried  and  sentenced  Bishop  Andrew  without  charges  preferred,  or  a 
cognizable  offenso  stated.    If  it  is  even  admitted  that  they  intended 


APPENDIX.  621 

to  charge  him  "with  "improper  conduct,"  as  a  phrase  used  in  the  Dis- 
cipline to  embrace  eveiy  class  of  offenses  for  which  a  Bishop  is 
amenable  to  the  General  Conference,  and,  on  conviction,  liable  to  be 
expelled,  they  did  not  formally  prefer  that  charge;  if  they  intended 
to  specify  his  "connection  with  slavery"  as  the  substantive  offense 
under  that  charge,  a  "connection  with  slavery"  is  not  a  cognizable 
offense,  under  any  law  of  our  Church,  written  or  unwritten,  statutory 
or  prescriptive;  and  the  only  "connection  with  slavery"  attempted 
to  be  established  in  his  case,  is  expressly  permitted  by  the  Discipline, 
in  section  10,  part  ii.,  on  Slavery.  If  they  claimed  the  right  to 
declare  in  their  legislative  capacity,  that  "such  a  connection  with 
slavery"  was  an  offense  in  a  Bishop,  they  could  only  extend  it  to  him 
retroactively  by  ex  post  facto  enactment,  and  even  then  it  was  never  pro- 
mulgated until  the  very  moment  in  which  they  pronounced  his  sen- 
tence by  a  majority  vote.  But  we  cannot  admit  that  the  framers  of 
our  Discipline  ever  intended  to  subject  a  Bishop  to  the  monstrous 
injustice  of  being  liable  to  be  expelled  by  the  General  Conference, 
exercising  original  jurisdiction,  for  an  impropriety  short  of  immoral- 
ity or  official  delinquency,  whilst  they  so  cautiously  secured  his  offi- 
cial and  personal  rights  in  all  cases  where  that  body  has  appellate 
cognizance  of  charges  for  positive  immoralities ;  and  we  are  confident 
that  a  fair  and  rational  construction  of  the  4th  and  5th  questions 
and  their  answers,  in  the  4th  section  of  the  1st  chapter  of  the  Dis- 
cipline, will  make  "improper  conduct,"  in  the  answer  to  the  4th 
question,  and  "  immorality,"  in  the  5th,  descriptive  of  the  same  class 
of  offenses  in  the  mind  of  the  law-maker,  who  could  never  have 
intended  to  subject  that  venerable  officer  to  expulsion  for  offenses  so 
light  that  they  could  not  be  considered  either  immoralities  or  official 
delinquencies,  and  so  entirely  dependent  for  their  very  existence  upon 
the  caprice  or  varying  notions  of  every  General  Conference,  that  they 
could  not  either  be  classified  or  designated. 

The  foregoing  views  we  consider  the  embodiment  of  public  opin- 
ion throughout  our  Conference.  The  sentiments  of  our  people  in 
primary  meetings,  in  Quarterly  Conferences,  as  expressed  in  the  most 
solemn  forms,  sustain  the  course  of  our  delegation  in  the  General 
Conference,  and  approve,  and  even  demand,  an  organization  which 
shall  transfer  the  slaveholding  Conferences  from  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  North.  The  unanimity  of  the  people  we  verily  believe  to  be 
without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  Church  action,  and  therefore  feel 
ourselves  perfectly  justified  in  recommending  to  your  body  the  adop- 
tion of  the  following  resolutions,  viz. : 


622  APPENDIX. 

1.  Resolved,  That  we  will  elect  delegates  to  tha  Convention  to  be 
held  in  Louisville,  Ky.,  on  the  1st  of  May  next,  upon  the  basis  of 
representation  proposed  and  acted  on  by  the  other  Conferences — viz., 
one  delegate  for  every  eleven  members  of  our  Conference. 

2.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  be  instructed  to  cooperate  with  the 
delegates  from  other  Southern  and  South-western  Conferences,  who 
shall  be  represented  in  the  Convention,  in  effecting  the  organization 
vf  a  General  Conference,  which  shall  embrace  those  Annual  Confer- 
ences, and  in  making  all  necessary  arrangements  for  its  going  into 
operation,  as  soon  as  the  acts  of  the  said  Convention  shall  have  been 
reported  by  the  several  delegations  to  their  constituents,  and  accepted 
by  them,  according  to  such  arrangements  as  may  be  made  by  the 
Convention  for  carrying  the  same  into  effect. 

3.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  be  instructed  to  use  all  prudent 
precautions  to  secure  that  portion  of  the  Book  Concern  and  Chartered 
Fund  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  which  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences represented  in  the  Convention  shall  be  unitedly  entitled,  and 
all  the  property  to  which  the  several  Annual  Conferences  are  entitled, 
to  them  severally,  and  that  to  this  end  they  be  requested  to  obtain 
the  written  opinions  of  one  or  more  eminent  lawyers;  but  that,  in  the 
event  they  must  either  abandon  the  property  or  remain  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  constituted  as  it  now  is,  they  be  left  to  the  exercise  of  a 
sound  discretion  in  the  premises. 

4.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  make  a  report  to  this  bod)''  at  its 
next  session,  of  all  their  acts  and  doings  in  the  aforesaid  Convention, 
and  this  body  shall  not  be  bound  by  any  arrangements  therein  made, 
until  after  it  shall  have  accepted  and  approved  them  in  Conference 
assembled. 

5.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  be,  and  they  are  hereby  instructed  not 
to  agree  to  any  alterations  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  but  that  the  Discipline  adopted  under  the  new  organiza- 
tion shall  be  that  known  and  recognized  as  the  Discipline  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  with  such  modifications 
only  as  are  necessary  formally  to  adapt  it  to  the  new  organization. 

6.  Resolved,  That  we  consider  ourselves  as,  an  integral  part  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  and  that  we  have 
done  no  act,  nor  do  we  authorize  any  act  to  be  done  in  our  name,  by 
which  our  title  to  be  so  considered  shall  be  forfeited,  unless  in  the 
event  contemplated  in  the  last  clause  of  the  third  resolution  it  becomes 
necessary  so  to  do. 


APPENDIX.  623 

7.  Resolved,  That  we  highly  appreciate  the  devotion  of  our  venera- 
ble senior  Bishop  to  the  Constitution  and  Discipline  of  the  Church, 
and  his  uncompromising  firmness  in  maintaining  both  the  one  and 
the  other,  and  hereby  assure  him  of  our  increased  confidence  and 
affection. 

8.  Resolved,  That  our  beloved  Bishop  Andrew  has  endeared  him- 
self to  the  preachers  and  people  of  the  Southern  Church,  by  resisting 
the  constitutional  dictation  of  the  majority  of  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence, and  that  we  cordially  approve  his  whole  action  in  the  case  and 
welcome  him  to  the  unrestricted  exercise  of  his  Episcopal  functions 
among  us. 

9.  Resolved,  That  the  course  of  our  delgates  in  the  trying  circum- 
stances by  which  they  were  surrounded  during  the  last  session  of  the 
General  Conference,  meets  our  entire  approbation. 

10.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  alteration  of  the  sixth  restric- 
tive rule,  as  recommended  by  the  resolution  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence. 

11.  Resolved,  That  we  do  not  concur  with  the  Holston  Conference 
in  the  resolution  proposed  by  them,  regarding  it  as  tending  only  to 
embarrass  the  action  of  the  Convention,  without  the  slightest  promise 
of  good  to  either  division  of  the  Church. 

L.  Pierce,  Thomas  Samford, 

Samuel  Anthony,  Ignatius  A.  Few, 

Geo,  F.  Pierce,  Isaac  Boring, 

W.  D.  Matthews,  John  W.  Talley, 

JosiAH  Lewis,  J.  B.  Payne. 


FLORIDA  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  the  action  of 
the  late  General  Conference  in  the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  F.  A. 
Harding — also  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Nine  in  the  late  Gen- 
eral Conference  on  the  subject  of  a  peaceable  separation  of  the 
Church — also  the  resolution  of  the  Holston  Conference  on  the  same 
pubject — submit  the  following  resolutions,  to  wit: 

1.  Resolved,  That  we  disapprove  of  the  course  of  the  late  General 
Conference  in  the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  F.  A.  Harding. 

2.  That  we  heartily  approve  the  proposed  Plan  of  Separation  as 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference,  under  which  the  Southern  and 
South-western  Conferences  are  authorized  to  unite  in  a  distinct  eccle- 
siastical connection. 


624  APPENDIX. 

3.  That  we  are  satisfied  that  the  peace  and  success  of  the  Church  in 
the  South  demand  a  separate  and  distinct  organization. 

4.  That  we  commend  and  admire  the  firm  and  manly  course  pur- 
sued by  Bishop  Andrew  under  the  trials  he  has  had  to  encounter, 
and  that  we  still  regard  him  as  possessing  all  his  Episcopal  functions. 

5.  That  the  course  pursued  by  our  venerable  senior  Superintendent, 
Bishop  Soule,  in  defending  the  Discipline  of  our  Church,  has  served 
but  to  endear  him  to  us  more  and  more,  and  we  heartily  approve 
his  course  in  inviting  Bishop  Andrew  to  assist  him  in  his  Episcopal 
visitations, 

6.  That  we  tender  our  warmest  thanks  to  all  those  brethren  who 
voted  in  the  minority  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case. 

7.  That  we  approve  of  the  proposed  Convention  to  be  held  in 
Louisville  the  1st  of  May  next,  and  will  proceed  to  elect  delegates 
to  said  Convention. 

8.  That  wt  do  not  concur  in  the  resolutions  of  the  Holston  Con- 
ference, proposing  the  election  of  delegates  for  forming  a  Plan  of 
Compromise. 

9.  That  we  do  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the  late  General 
Conference  for  the  change  of  the  sixth  article  in  the  restrictive  rules 
in  the  Book  of  Discipline,  allowing  an  equitable  ji?'o  rata  division  of 
the  Book  Concern.  P.  P.  Smith,  S.  P.  PvIchardson, 

T.  C.  Penning,  R.  H.  Luckey, 

J.  W.  Yarbrough,  R.  H.  Howren, 

W.  W.  Griffin,  A.  Peeler. 
A.  Martin, 


TEXAS  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  to  whom  were  referred  certain  acts  of  the  late  Gen- 
eral Conference,  causing  and  providing  for  a  division  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  or  the  General  Conference  thereof,  and  sundry 
communications  pertaining  thereto,  have  had  the  same  under  solemn 
and  prayerful  consideration,  and  beg  leave  to  present  the  following 
Report: 

In  view  of  the  numerous  expositions  and  arguments,  pro  and  con, 
■with  which  the  Christian  Advocates  have  teemed  for  some  months, 
on  the  merits  of  the  highly  important  subject  upon  which  your  com- 
mittee have  been  called  to  act,  they  presume  that  the  Conference  is 
too  well  enlightened  to  need  an  elaborate  and  argumentative  investi- 
gation of  them,  in  their  multifarious  relations  and  bearings;  they 


APPENDIX.  625 

therefore  respectfully  present  the  following  resolutions,  as  the  result 
of  their  deliberations: 

Resolved,  1.  That  we  approve  of  the  course  of  the  Southern  and 
South-western  delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference;  and  that 
their  independent  and  faithful  discharge  of  duty,  in  a  trying  crisisi 
commands  our  admiration  and  merits  our  thanks. 

2.  That  we  deeply  deplore  the  increasingly  fearful  controversy 
between  the  Northern  and  Southern  divisions  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  on  the  institution  of  domestic  slavery,  and  that  we  will 
not  cease  to'  pray  most  fervently  to  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  for 
his  gracious  interposition  in  guiding  this  controversy  to  a  happy  issue. 

3.  That  we  approve  the  appointment  of  a  Convention  of  dele- 
gates from  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city  of 
Louisville,  on  the  1st  of  May  next,  by  the  Southern  and  South 
western  delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference ;  and  also  the  ratio 
of  representation  proposed  by  said  delegates — to  wit,  one  delegate 
for  every  eleven  members  of  the  Conference — and  that  we  will  elect 
delegates  to  the  proposed  Convention  upon  said  basis,  to  act  under 
the  following  instructions,  to  wit:  To  endeavor  to  secure  a  compro- 
mise between  the  North  and  South ;  to  oppose  a  formal  division  of 
the  Church  before  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  or  a  general  Con 
vention,  can  be  convened  to  decide  the  present  controversy.  But 
should  a  division  be  deemed  unavoidable,  and  be  determined  on  by 
the  Convention,  then,  being  well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of  the 
Church  as  it  is,  we  instruct  our  delegates  not  to  support  or  favor  any 
change  in  said  Discipline,  by  said  Convention,  other  than  to  adapt 
its  fiscal  economy  to  the  Southern  organization. 

4.  That  we  approve  of  the  dignified  and  prudent  course  of  the 
bench  of  Bishops  who  presided  in  the  late  General  Conference. 

5.  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Conference  that  the  Rev.  John 
Clarke,  one  of  our  delegates  to  the  late  General  Conference,  entirely 
misrepresented  our  views  and  sentiments  in  his  votes  in  the  cases  of 
Eev.  F.  A.  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew. 

6.  That  we  appoint  the  Friday  immediately  preceding  the  meeting 
of  the  proposed  general  Convention  of  the  delegates  of  the  Southern 
and  South-western  Conferences,  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  for 
the  blessing  of  Almighty  God  on  said  Convention — that  it  may  be 
favored  with  the  healthful  influence  of  his  grace,  and  the  guidance  of 
his  wisdom.  Chauncey  Richardson, 

Robert  Alexander, 
Samuel  A.  Williams. 
27 


626  APPENDIX. 

ALABAMA  CONFERENCE. 

The  committee  appointed  by  the  Conference  to  take  into  consid- 
eration the  subject  of  a  separate  jurisdiction  for  the  Southern  Con- 
ferences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  beg  leave  to  report  that 
they  have  meditated  with  prayerful  solicitude  on  this  important 
matter,  and  have  solemnly  concluded  on  the  necessity  of  the  measure. 
They  suppose  it  to  be  superfluous  to  review  formally  all  the  proceed- 
ings which  constitute  the  unhappy  controversy  between  the  Northern 
and  Southern  portions  of  our  Church,  inasmuch  as  their  sentiments 
can  be  expressed  in  one  sentence:  They  indorse  the  unanswerable 
Protest  of  the  Minority  in  the  late  General  Conference.  They 
believe  that  the  doctrines  of  that  imperishable  document  cannot  be 
successfully  assailed.  They  are  firm  in  the  conviction  that  the 
action  of  the  majority  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  was  unconstitu- 
tional. Being  but  a  delegated  body,  the  General  Conference  has  no 
legitimate  right  to  tamper  with  the  office  of  a  General  Superintend- 
ent— his  amenableness  to  that  body  and  liability  to  expulsion  by  it, 
having  exclusive  reference  to  maladministration,  ceasing  to  travel, 
and  immoral  conduct.  They  are  of  opinion  that  Bishop  Andrew's 
connection  with  slavery  can  come  under  none  of  these  heads.  If 
the  entire  Eldership  of  the  Church,  in  a  conventional  capacity,  were 
to  constitute  non-slaveholding  or  even  abolitionism  a  tenure  by  which 
the  Episcopal  office  should  be  held,  or  if  they  were  to  abolish  the 
office,  they  doubtless  could  plead  the  abstract  right  thus  to  modify 
or  revolutionize  the  Church  in  its  supreme  executive  administration. 
But  before  the  General  Conference  can  justly  plead  this  right,  it  must 
show  when  and  where  such  plenary  power  was  delegated  to  it  by  the 
only  fountain  of  authority  —  the  entire  Pastorate  of  the  Church. 
Your  committee  are,  therefore,  of  opinion  that  the  General  Confer- 
ence has  no  more  power  over  a  Bishop,  except  in  the  specified  cases 
of  maladministration,  ceasing  to  travel,  and  immorality,  than  over 
the  Episcopacy,  as  an  integral  part  of  our  ecclesiastical  polity.  It 
can  no  more  depose  a  Bishop  for  slaveholding  than  it  can  create  a 
new  Church. 

Your  committee  deeply  regret  that  these  "conservative"  senti- 
ments did  not  occur  to  the  majority  in  the  late  General  Conference, 
and  that  the  apologists  of  that  body,  sir  -".e  its  session,  have  given  them 
no  place  in  their  ecclesiastical  creed,  but,  on  the  contrary,  have  given 
fearful  evidence  that  the  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew 
are  but  the  incipiency  of  a  course  which,  when  finished,  will  leave 


APPENDIX.  •  627 

not  a  solitary  slaveholder  in  the  communion  which  shall  be,  unfortu- 
nately, under  their  control.  The  foregoing  sentiments  and  opinions' 
embody  the  general  views  expressed  most  unequivocally  throughout 
the  Conference  District  since  the  late  General  Conference,  by  the 
large  body  of  the  membership,  both  in  primary  meetings  and  Quar- 
terly Conferences. 

The  committee,  therefore,  offer  to  the  calm  consideration  and 
mature  action  of  the  Alabama  Annual  Conference,  the  following 
series  of  resolutions : 

1.  Resolved,  That  this  Conference  deeply  deplores  the  action  of  the 
late  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
case  of  our  venerable  Superintendent,  Bishop  Andrew,  believing  it 
to  be  unconstitutional,  being  as  totally  destitute  of  warrant  from  the 
Discipline  as  from  the  word  of  God. 

2.  That  the  almost  unanimous  agreement  of  Northern  Methodists 
with  the  majority,  and  Southern  Methodists  with  the  minority  of  the 
late  General  Conference,  shows  the  wisdom  of  that  body  in  suggest- 
ing a  duality  of  jurisdiction  to  meet  the  present  emergency. 

3.  That  this  Conference  agrees  to  the  proposition  for  the  alteration 
of  the  sixth  restrictive  rule  of  the  Discipline. 

4.  That  this  Conference  approves  of  the  projected  Convention  at 
Louisville  in  May  next. 

5.  That  this  Conference  most  respectfully  invites  all  the  Bishops  to 
attend  the  proposed  Convention  at  Louisville. 

6.  That  this  Conference  is  decided  in  its  attachment  to  Methodism 
as  it  exists  in  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  hopes  that  the  Louisville 
Convention  will  not  make  the  slightest  alteration,  except  so  far  as 
may  be  absolutely  necessary  for  the  formation  of  a  separate  jurisdic- 
tion, 

7.  That  every  preacher  of  this  Conference  shall  take  up  a  collec- 
tion in  his  station  or  circuit,  as  soon  as  practicable,  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  the  delegates  to  the  Convention,  and  the  proceeds  of  such 
collection  shall  be  immediately  paid  over  to  the  nearest  delegate  or 
Presiding  Elder ;  and  the  excess,  or  deficit  of  the  collection  for  the 
said  expenses  shall  be  reported  to  the  next  Conference,  which  shall 
take  action  on  the  same. 

8.  That  the  Friday  immediately  preceding  the  session  of  the  Con- 
vention shall  be  observed  in  all  our  circuits  and  stations  as  a  day 
of  fasting  and  prayer  for  the  blessings  of  God  upon  its  deliberations. 

9.  That  whilst  this  Conference  fully  appreciates  the  commendable 
motives  which  induced  the  Holston  Conference  to  suggest  another 


628  APPENDIX. 

expedient  to  compromise  the  differences  existing  between  the  Northern 
and  Southern  divisions  of  the  Church,  it  nevertheless  cannot  concur 
in  the  proposition  of  that  Conference  concerning  that  matter. 

10.  That  this  Conference  fully  recognizes  the  right  of  our  excellent 
Superintendent,  Bishop  Soule,  to  invite  Bishop  Andrew  to  share  with 
him  the  responsibilities  of  the  Episcopal  office,  and  while  the  Confer- 
ence regrets  the  absence  of  the  former,  it  rejoices  in  being  favored 
with  the  efficient  services  of  the  latter — it  respectfully  tenders  these 
"true  yoke-fellows"  in  the  superintendency  the  fullest  approbation, 
the  most  fervent  prayers,  and  the  most  cordial  sympathies. 

Thos.  0.  SuMMEKS,        A.  H.  Mitchell, 
E.  V.  Levert,  J.  Hamilton, 

E.  HeAEN,  .         W.  MUREAH, 

J.  Boring,  Geo.  Shaeffeb. 

C.  McLeod. 


c. 

CORRESPONDENCE  CONCERNING  UNION. 


It  has  frequently  been  stated,  and  believed  by  some,  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  (North)  has  made  propositions  of  fra- 
ternal relations  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  We  pub- 
lish in  this  Appendix  all  the  official  correspondence  that  has  taken 
place  between  the  two  branches  of  Methodism,  since  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1848,  at  which  time  fraternal  intercourse  was  declined  by 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  (North). 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  in  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  in  May,  1869,  the  following  corre- 
spondence took  place  between  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  (North)  and  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South. 

412  Locust  St.,  St.  Loots,  May  7, 1869. 
To  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South : 

Rev.  and  Dear  Beethren  -. — We  have  been  deputed  to  convey  to 
you  a  communication  from  the  Board  of  Bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

We  are  ready  to  wait  upon  you  at  such  time  and  place  as  may  suit 
your  convenience. 

With  assurances  of  Christian  regard, 
Yours  truly,  E.  S.  Janes, 

M.  Simpson. 

St.  Louis,  May  7, 1869. 
To  Bishops  Janes  and  Simpson : 

Rev.  and  Dear  Brethren: — Your  note  of  this  d^te  to  the  College 

of  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  informing  them 

that  you  have  been  deputed  to  convey  to  them  a  communication 

27!:  (629) 


630  APPENDIX. 

from  the  Board  of  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
of  your  readiness  to  wait  upon  them  for  this  purpose,  has  been 
received. 

I  have  been  instructed  to  reply  that  they  will  be  pleased  taTeceive 
you  to-morrow,  at  10  o'clock  a.m.,  at  their  room,  1406  Lucas  Place. 

Very  respectfully  and  truly  yours, 

H.  N.  McTyeire,  Sec'y. 

Accordingly,  at  10  o'clock  a.m.,  Bishops  Janes  and  Simpson,  hav- 
ing been  announced,  were  introduced,  and,  after  some  general  con- 
versation, made  the  following  communications: 

Me-u^ville.  Pa.,  April  23, 1869. 

Dear  Bkethre>"  : — It  seems  to  us,  that  as  the  division  of  those 
Churches  of  our  country  which  are  of  like  faith  and  order  has  been 
productive  of  evil,  so  the  reunion  of  them  would  be  productive  of  good. 

As  the  main  cause  of  the  separation  has  been  removed,  so  has  the 
chief  obstacle  to  the  restoration. 

It  is  fitting  that  the  Methodist  Church,  which  began  the  disunion, 
should  not  be  the  last  to  achieve  the  reunion;  and  it  would  be  a 
reproach  to  the  chief  pastors  of  the  separated  bodies,  if  they  waited 
until  their  flocks  prompted  them  to  the  union,  which  both  the  love 
of  country  and  of  religion  invoke,  and  which  the  providence  of  God 
seems  to  render  inevitable  at  no  distant  day. 

We  are  aware  that  there  are  diflBculties  in  the  way,  growing  out 
of  the  controversies  of  the  past  and  the  tempers  of  the  present. 

"We  have,  therefore,  deputed  our  colleagues,  Morris  and  Janes,  to 
confer  with  you,  alike  as  to  the  propriety,  practicability,  and  methods 
of  reunion,  -hoping  that  they,  having  been  elected  to  their  high  office 
by  the  Church  before  its  severance,  and  endeared  to  all  its  parts  by 
their  apostolic  labors,  may  live  to  see  the  several  parts  united  upon 
a  foundation  honorable  to  all,  stable  as  truth,  and  harmonious  with 
the  fundamental  law  of  our  religion. 

In  behalf  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Respectfully  yours,  etc.,  T.  A.  Morris,  President. 

D.  W.  Clark,  Sec'y. 

To  the  Reverends,  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

P.  S. — Bishop  Morris  having  stated  that  it  was  doubtful  whether 
he  would  be  able  to  fulfill  the  duties  of  the  Commission,  it  was  resolved 
that  Bishop  Simpson  be  added  to  the  delegation  above  described. 

T.  A.  MoBEis. 


APPENDIX.  631 

At  this  stage  of  the  interview  tbe  following  letter  from  Bishop 

Morris  was  read : 

Spbixofiuj),  Omo,  May  4, 1869. 
Rev.  Bishop  E.  8.  Janes,  D.D.: 

Dear  Brother: — If  I  remember  rightly,  this  is  the  week  in  v/hich 
you  expect  to  visit  St.  Louis  on  important  business  of  the  Church. 
I  regard  it  as  complimentary  to  myself  that  I  was  appointed  to 
accompany  you  on  that  benevolent  mission,  and  regret  that  it  is  not 
convenient  for  me  to  execute  that  mission  in  person,  but  trust  that 
my  alternate  will  more  than  supply  my  lack  of  service. 

For  three  weeks  past  our  family  have  all  had  enough  to  fill  our 
heads  and  hands  and  hearts  to  overflowing;  one  result  is,  the  health 
of  Mrs.  Morris  is  more  feeble  and  precarious  than  usual.  This  is  the 
chief  cause  of  my  failure  to  appear. 

Please  accept  this  explanation  and  excuse  my  absence. 

The  official  letter  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
to  the  Rev.  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  not 
only  bears  my  official  signature,  but  it  has  my  personal  approval. 
I  believe  it  accords  with  the  action  of  our  last  General  Conference. 
I  also  think  it  judicious  and  opportune,  and  trust  that  beneficial 
results  may  follow. 

If  you  have  any  opportunity  to  address  the  Reverend  Episcopal 
Board  in  St,  Louis  in  person,  please  present  them  collectively  with 
my  fraternal  greetings. 

Praying  that  the  Lord  may  direct  them  and  us  in  all  things  to  his 
glory  and  the  general  good  of  all  concerned,  I  am,  dear  colleague, 
respectfully  and  fraternally  yours  ever,  T.  A.  Moeeis. 

Bishop  Janes  then  presented  the  following  communication : 

To  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  convened  in  St. 
Louis,  Mo.: 

Rev.  and  Dear  Brethren: — At  a  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Bish- 
ops of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  held  in  Erie,  Pa.,  in  June, 
1865,  we  made  and  published  the  following  declaration : 

"  That  the  great  cause  which  led  to  the  separation  from  us  of  both 
the  Wesleyan  Methodists  of  this  country  and  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  has  passed  away,  and  we  trust  the  day  is  not 
far  distant  when  there  shall  be  but  one  organization,  which  shall 
embrace  the  whole  Methodist  family  in  the  United  States." 

This  declaration  was  made  in  good  faith,  and  shows  what  were 
then  our  sentiments  and  feelings,  and  was  deemed  by  us  as  th«  utmost 
we  were  authorized  to  say  or  do  on  the  subject  at  that  timo. 


632  APPENDIX. 

Althougli  our  late  General  Conference  did  not  directly  authorize 
us  to  take  farther  specific  action  in  the  matter,  yet  we  judge  that  some 
of  its  acts  justify  advanced  steps  on  our  part. 

In  our  Quadrennial  Address  to  the  General  Conference  we  referred 
to  the  declaration  above  quoted,  and  no  exception  was  taken  to  it  by 
that  body. 

The  General  Conference,  to  promote  the  union  of  Methodistic 
Churches,  appointed  a  Commission,  consisting  of  eight  members  of 
that  body  and  the  Bishops  of  the  Church,  who  were  "  empowered  to 
treat  with  a  similar  Commission  from  any  other  Methodist  Church," 
that  may  desire  a  union  with  us. 

We  have  understood  that  there  were  in  the  minds  of  many  of  the 
members  and  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
reasons  why  they  consider  it  unsuitable  for  them  to  initiate  measures 
to  effect  a  reunion  of  the  two  Churches. 

Believing  as  we  do  that  if  they  were  one  in  both  spirit  and  organi- 
zation, much  more  could  be  accomplished  for  the  interests  of  human- 
ity and  the  glory  of  God,  we  are  desirous  of  doing  all  we  consistently 
can  to  promote  a  reunion  on  terms  alike  honorable  to  both  Churches 
and  in  the  spirit  of  our  Divine  Lord. 

We  therefore  ask  your  attention  to  the  Commission  above  referred 
to,  and  we  express  to  you  the  opinion,  that  should  your  approaching 
General  Conference  see  proper  to  appoint  a  similar  Commission,  they 
will  be  promptly  met  by  our  Commission,  who  we  doubt  not  will  be 
happy  to  treat  with  them,  and  to  report  the  result  to  our  next  Gen- 
eral Conference. 

Praying  that  Infinite  Wisdom  may  guide  both  you  and  us  in  this 
important  matter,  so  that  our  E,edeemer's  kingdom  may  be  advanced 
and  his  name  be  glorified,  we  are  yours  in  the  bonds  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  E.  S.  Janes, 

M.  Simpson. 

In  behalf  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  May  8, 1869. 

The  Bishops  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  a  few  days  afterward, 
made  the  following  reply  to  the  foregoing : 

To  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church: 

Eev.  and  Dear  Brethren  : — It  has  afforded  us  pleasure  to  receive 
in  person  your  respected  colleagues,  Bishops  Janes  and  Simpson, 
deputed  by  you  to  confer  with  us ;  and  we  cannot  forbear  to  express 
our  regret  that  one  of  the  delegation  appointed  by  you  to  us — the 


APPENDIX.  633 

venerable  Bishop  Morris — was  not  able  to  be  present.  We  desired 
to  see  him  again  face  to  face,  to  enjoy  his  society,  and  to  renew 
to  him  the  assurances  of  our  affection  and  regard.  Our  own  senior 
Superintendent,  Bishop  Andrew,  though  in  the  city,  was  hindered  by 
the  feebleness  and  infirmities  incident  to  age  from  being  present  at 
the  reception  of  your  colleagues,  and  enjoying  with  us  the  interview. 

Your  communication,  together  with  that  laid  before  us  by  your 
Commission,  has  been  considered,  and  we  entirely  agree  in  your  esti- 
mate of  the  responsibility  in  the  premises  resting  on  the  chief  pas- 
tors of  the  separated  bodies  of  Methodism. 

We  would  approach,  dear  brethren,  the  matter  of  your  communi- 
cation with  the  utmost  candor  and  love,  and  so  meet  the  advanced 
steps  on  your  part  that  nothing  shall  be  wanting  on  ours  to  bring 
about  a  better  state  of  things,  becoming  and  beneficial  to  us  both. 
We  deplore  the  unfortunate  controversies  and  tempers  that  have  pre- 
vailed, and  that  still  prevail ;  and  our  earnest  desire  and  prayer  to 
God  is,  that  they  may  give  place,  and  that  speedily,  to  peace.  In 
evidence  of  this,  we  are  ready  not  only  to  respond  to,  but  to  go  far- 
ther than  your  communication,  and  from  our  point  of  view  to  suggest 
what  may  help  to  remove  the  difficulties  and  obstacles  that  are  in 
the  way. 

Pemit  us,  then,  to  say,  in  regard  to  "reunion,"  that  in  our  opinion 
there  is  another  subject  to  be  considered  before  that  can  be  enter- 
tained, and  necessarily  in  order  to  it:  we  mean  the  establishment  of 
fraternal  feelings  and  relations  between  the  two  Churches.  They 
must  be  one  in  spirit  before  they  can  be  one  in  organization.  Con- 
cord must  be  achieved  before  any  real  union.  Heart  divisions  must 
be  cured  before  corporate  divisions  can  be  healed. 
^'  You  will  not  consider  it  as  unfriendly  to  the  freest  flow  of  Christian 
sympathy  evoked  by  your  overture,  if  we  remind  you  that  we  initiated 
the  measure  to  effect  fraternal  relations  some  years  ago;  and,  as  was 
declared  then,  and  as  we  do  now  declare,  in  good  faith  and  with 
most  Christian  purposes.  Our  General  Conference  sent  one  of  its 
most  honored  Elders  to  your  General  Conference  to  convey  their 
Christian  salutations,  and  through  him  to  "  offer  to  you  the  establish- 
ment of  fraternal  relations  and  intercourse."  It  pains  us  to  refer  to 
the  fact,  but  it  is  matter  of  history,  that  he  was  not  received. 

The  closing  words  of  Dr.  Pierce  to  your  General  Conference,  upon 
being  notified  of  the  failure  of  his  mission,  are  in  your  possession : 

"  You  will  therefore  regard  this  communication  as  final  on  the 
part  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South.    She  can  never  renew  the  offer  of 


634  APPENDIX. 

fraternal  relations  between  the  two  great  bodies  of  Wesleyan  Meth- 
odists in  the  United  States.  But  the  proposition  can  be  renewed  at 
any  time,  either  now  or  hereafter,  by  the  M.  E.  Church.  And  if 
ever  made  upon  the  basis  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  as  adopted  by 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,  the  Church,  South,  will  cordially 
entertain  the  proposition." 

His  language  to  our  General  Conference  in  submitting  his  report 
was: 

"  Thus  ended  the  well-intended  Commission  from  your  body.  Upon 
this  noble  effort  I  verily  believe  the  smile  of  Divine  approbation  will 
rest,  when  the  heavenly  bodies  themselves  will  have  ceased  to  shine. 
TVe  did  affectionately  endeavor  to  make  and  preserve  peace,  but  our 
offer  was  rejected  as  of  no  deserving." 

The  evils  that  have  followed  this  rejection  we  suffer  in  common 
with  you.  We  lament  them  in  common  with  you ;  and,  notwithstand- 
ing all  that  has  since  occurred,  we  are  ready,  on  terms  honorable  to 
all,  to  join  heart  and  hand  with  yon  to  stay,  and,  as  far  as  practica- 
ble, to  remedy  them.  But  you  could  not  expect  us  to  say  less  than 
this — that  the  words  of  our  rejected  delegate  have  been  ever  since, 
and  still  are,  our  words. 

It  may  help  to  the  more  speedy  and  certain  attainment  of  the  ends 
we  both  desire,  to  keep  distinctly  in  mind  our  mutual  positions,  and 
to  hold  the  facts  involved  in  our  common  history  in  a  clear  light. 

You  say,  "  that  the  great  catise  which  led  to  the  separation  from  us 
of  both  the  Wesleyan  Methodists  of  this  country  and  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  has  passed  away."  If  we  understand  your 
reference,  we  so  far  differ  from  you  in  this  opinion,  that  it  may  help  any 
negotiations  hereafter  taking  place  to  restate  our  position.  Slavery 
was  not,  in  any  proper  sense,  the  cause,  but  the  occasion  only,  of  that 
separation,  the  ne(^8sity  of  which  we  regretted  as  much  as  you.  But 
certain  principles  were  developed  in  relation  to  the  political  aspects 
of  that  question,  involving  the  right  of  ecclesiastical  bodies  to  han- 
dle and  determine  matters  lying  outside  of  their  proper  jurisdiction, 
which  we  could  not  accept;  and,  in  a  case  arising,  certain  construc- 
tions of  the  constitutional  powers  and  prerogatives  of  the  General 
Conference  were  assumed  and  acted  on,  which  we  considered  oppres- 
sive and  destructive  of  the  rights  of  the  numerical  minority  repre- 
sented in  that  highest  judicatory  of  the  Church.  That  which  you 
are  pleased  to  call — no  doubt  sincerely  thinking  it  so — "  the  great 
cause"  of  separation,  existed  in  the  Church  from  its  organization,  and 
jret  for  sixty  years  there  was  no  separation.     But  v/hen  those  theo- 


APPENDIX.  635 

ries,  incidentally  evolved  in  connection  with  it,  began  to  be  put  into 
practice,  then  the  separation  came. 

We  cannot  think  you  mean  to  ofiFend  us  when  you  speak  of  our 
having  separated  from  you,  and  put  us  in  the  same  category  with  a 
small  body  of  schismatics  who  were  always  an  acknowledged  secession. 
Allow  us,  in  all  kindness,  brethren,  to  remind  you,  and  to  keep  the 
important  fact  of  history  prominent,  that  we  separated  from  you  in 
no  sense  in  which  you  did  not  separate  from  us.  The  separation  was 
by  compact  and  mutual ;  and  nearer  approaches  to  each  other  can  be 
conducted,  with  hope  of  a  successful  issue,  only  on  this  basis. 

It  is  our  opinion  that  the  controversies  and  tempers  which  so  dis- 
turb the  Churches,  and  are  so  hurtful  to  the  souls  of  those  for  whom 
Christ  died,  are  due,  in  a  large  measure,  to  irritating  causes  which 
are  not  entirely  beyond  the  control  of  the  chief  pastors  of  the  sepa- 
rated bodies.  To  this  end  we  invite  your  concurrence  and  coopera- 
tion. 

And  we  take  this  occasion  frankly  to  say,  that  the  conduct  of  some 
of  your  missionaries  and  agents  who  have  been  sent  into  that  portion 
of  our  common  country  occupied  by  us,  and  their  avowed  purpose  to 
disintegrate  and  absorb  our  societies  that  otherwise  dwell  quietly, 
have  been  very  prejudicial  to  that  charity  which  we  desire  our  peo- 
ple to  cultivate  toward  all  Christians,  and  especially  those  who  are 
called  by  the  endeared  name  of  Methodists;  and  their  course  in 
taking  possession  of  some  of  our  houses  of  worship  has  inflicted  both 
grief  and  loss  on  us,  and  bears  the  appearance,  to  disinterested  men 
of  the  world,  of  being  not  only  a  breach  of  charity,  but  an  invasion 
of  the  plainest  rights  of  property.  Thus  the  adversary  has  had 
occasion  to  speak  reproachfully,  and  the  cause  of  our  Master  has  been 
■wounded  by  its  professed  friends. 

Brethren,  these  things  ought  not  so  to  be ;  and  we  propose,  until 
some  action  more  formal,  and  authoritative,  and  advanced  in  this 
direction,  can  be  taken  by  our  highest  judicatories,  to  unite  with  you 
in  preventing  them.  We  do  not  say  that  our  own  people  have  been, 
in  every  instance  of  these  unhappy  controversies  and  tempers,  without 
blame  as  toward  you.  But  this  we  say,  if  any  offenses  against  the  law 
of  love,  committed  by  those  under  our  appointment,  any  aggressions 
upon  your  just  privileges  and  rights,  are  properly  represented  to  us, 
the  representation  will  be  respectfully  considered,  and  we  shall  stand 
read}',  by  all  the  authority  and  influence  we  have,  to  restrain  andr^* 
correct  them. 

These  are  our  views;  and  we  are  sure  that  we  represent  the  senti- 


636  APPENDIX. 

ments  of  our  ministers  and  people.  We  have  no  authority  to  deter- 
mine any  thing  as  to  the  "propriety,  practicability,  and  methods" 
of  reunion  of  the  Churches  represented  by  you  and  ourselves. 

With  sentiments  of  Christian  regard,  we  are,  dear  brethren,  very 
truly  yours,  R.  Paine,  Chairman. 

•  H.  N.  McTyeiee,  Sec'y. 
St.  Louis,  Mo.,  May  11, 1869. 

Nothing  farther  transpired  on  this  subject  previous  to  the  General 
Conference  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  which  convened  in  the  city 
of  Memphis,  Tenn.,  in  May,  1870. 

Bishop  Janes  and  the  Rev.  William  L.  Harris,  D.D.,  of  the  M.  E. 
Church  (North),  reached  the  cit}''  of  Memphis  during  the  session -of 
the  General  Conference,  and  on  the  11th  of  May  sent  the  following 
communication  to  the  Conference,  which  was  read : 

To  the  Bishops  and  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  in  Conference  assembled : 

Dear  Brethren  : — The  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  1868,  to  treat  with 
similar  Commissioners  from  other  Methodist  Churches,  on  the  subject 
of  union,  at  a  meeting  held  in  Philadelphia,  Nov.  23,  1868,  appointed 
the  Rev.  Bishop  Janes  and  the  Rev.  John  McClintock,  D.D.,  a  depu- 
tation to  bear  to  you  a  communication  from  them.  Since  then  Dr. 
McClintock  has  deceased,  and,  by  the  authority  of  the  Commission, 
the  Rev.  William  L.  Harris,  D.D.,  has  been  appointed  to  serve  in  his 
stead. 

The  undersigned,  now  constituting  the  deputation,  are  present  at 
the  seat  of  your  session  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  to  you  the 
communication  of  the  Commission,  which  we  will  be  happy  to  do, 
either  in  person  or  by  letter,  as  may  best  accord  with  your  conven- 
ience and  pleasure.  Though  we  had  proposed  to  ourselves  the  satis- 
faction of  spending  several  days  in  witnessing  the  proceedings  of 
your  Conference,  and  enjoying  the  society  of  its  members,  the  recent 
severe  bereavement  of  our  Church,  in  the  death  of  several  of  her 
chief  ministers,  makes  it  necessary  for  us  to  return  as  soon  as  we 
can  fulfill  the  simple  duty  assigned  us. 

Truly  and  affectionately  yours,  E.  S.  Janes, 

W.  L.  Harris. 
,  Overton  Hotel,  Memphis,  May  11, 1870. 

On  motion  of  J.  E.  Evans,  a  Committee  of  Three  was  appointed  to 


APPENDIX.  637 

"Wait  en  Bishop  Janes  and  Dr.  Harris,  and  invite  them  to  the  Confer- 
ence-room. The  Chair  appointed  Bishop  Wightman,  Trusten  Polk, 
and  L.  M.  Lee,  on  this  committee. 

Bishop  Wightman,  Governor  Polk,  and  Dr.  Lee,  immediately  called 
on  Bishop  Janes  and  Dr.  Harris,  and  accompanied  them  to  the  Con- 
ference-room, where  they  were  introduced  to  the  Conference  by 
Bishop  Doggett. 

The  following  communication  was  presented  by  Bishop  Janes,  and 
read  by  the  Secretary.     It  is  as  follows : 

To  the  Bishops  and  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Charch, 
South,  in  Conference  assembled: 

Dear  Brethren  : — By  the  action  and  authority  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  held  in  Chicago  in 
May,  1868,  the  undersigned  were  appointed  a  Commission,  in  behalf 
of  said  Church,  to  treat  with  a  similar  Commission  from  any  other 
Methodist  Church,  on  the  subject  of  union. 

The  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  who  also  consti- 
tute a  part  of  this  Commission,  in  May,  1869,  communicated  to  the 
Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  the  fact  that  such 
a  Commission  had  been  appointed,  and  expressed  to  them  the  con- 
viction that  the  Commission  would  be  happy  to  meet  a  similar  one 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  for  the  purpose  con- 
templated in  its  appointment. 

At  a  meeting  of  this  Commission,  held  in  Philadelphia,  November 
23, 1869,  a  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted,  approving  the  afore- 
said action  of  the  Bishop-s.  Nevertheless,  the  Commission,  as  such, 
and  as  constituted  by  the  General  Conference,  being  desirous  of  dis- 
charging its  duties  in  the  fullest  and  most  acceptable  manner,  deemed 
it  proper  to  make  a  farther  communication  on  this  subject,  addressed 
to  the  Bishops  and  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  to  meet  in  Memphis,  in  May,  1870. 

The  fact  that  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  appointed  this  Commission,  shows  that,  in  the  judgment  of 
that  body,  there  are  now  no  sufficient  reasons  why  a  union  may  not 
bo  effected  on  terms  equally  honorable  to  all,  and  that  the  realiza- 
tion of  such  union  is  very  important  and  desirable. 

Hoping  that  you  may  see  this  subject  in  the  same  light,  and  that 

it  may  be  your  pleasure  to  appoint  a  similar  Commission  to  confer 

•with  us  previous  to  the  meeting  of  our  next  General  Conference  in 

1872;  and  praying  that  you  may  be  prospered  in  all  that  pertains  to 

28 


638  APPENDIX. 

the  welfare  of  a  Christian  Church,  and  desiring  your  prayers  in  be- 
half of  the  Church  we  represent,  that  we  may  share  a  like  prosper- 
ity, we  are,  dear  brethren,  yours  in  Christ  Jesus, 

Edmund  S.  Janes,  Levi  Scott, 

Matthew  Simpson,  Edward  R.  Ames, 

Davis  W.  Clark,  Edward  Thomson, 

Luke  Hitchcock,  Daniel  Curry, 

John  McClintock,  John  Lanahan, 

John  G.  Bruce,  Thomas  M,  Eddy, 

James  Pike,  "William  L.  Harris, 

Philadelphia,  Nov.  23,  1869.  Commissioners. 

After  the  reading  of  the  communication.  Bishop  Janes  came  for- 
ward and  thus  addressed  the  Conference : 

"  Having  presented  that  document,  we  consider  that  our  official 
duty  is  performed.  There  is  one  incident,  however,  in  connection 
with  this  matter,  to  which  I  think  it  proper  to  refer.  When  that 
document  was  provided  for,  it  was  not  intended  to  be  made  public 
until  it  was  presented  here  at  this  time.  Its  being  made  public  is 
not  by  the  action  or  approval  of  this  Commission.  It  was  its  inten- 
tion, in  a  dignified  and  delicate  manner,  to  make  this  communica- 
tion, and  it  was  not  intended  to  be  heralded  in  the  papers,  that  there 
should  be  any  discussion  over  it  that  it  could  be  made  use  of  to  the 
advantage  or  the  disadvantage  of  any  party.  I  think  it  due  this 
Commission  to  say  that  this  has  not  been  done  by  our  action  or  ap- 
proval. I  deem  it  proper  to  say  farther,  that  I  believe  that  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  has  acted  with  Christian  impulse  and  candor. 

"  I  am  sure  that  this  Commission  acts  from  religious  convictions 
and  with  perfect  candor.  The  action  of  the  General  Conference  was 
limited,  and  you  can  interpret  it  as  wisely  as  I  can.  This  Commis- 
fiion  was  appointed  to  treat  with  similar  Commissions  from  other 
Methodist  Churches.  I  do  not  understand  that  it  is  authorized  to 
take  any  definite  action,  but  only  that  it  might  learn  what  embar- 
rassments are  in  the  way  of  union,  and  ascertain  in  what  manner 
union  may  be  effected.  In  being  deputed  to  bear  this  document,  I 
was  not  authorized  to  negotiate  on  any  question,  but  I  judge  that 
we  can  confer  together  with  the  view  to  receive  or  give  any  informa- 
tion on  this  subject.  I  believe  this  is  a  simple  and  true  explanation, 
BO  far  as  respects  the  Church  which  we  represent.  I  do  not  think 
that  any  of  us  can  expect  that  perfect  organic  union  can  be  effected 
at  once  without  much  negotiation.     The  history  of  the  past  fivo 


APPENDIX.  639 

years  will  not  justify  us  in  entertaining  such  a  bope,  and  yet  we  do 
believe  that  the  prayer  of  Christ  will  be  heard,  and  the  day  will 
come  when  his  people  shall  be  one.  I  am  not  willing  to  lead  this 
Conference  to  any  action  but  what  is  justified  by  the  action  of  the 
Conference  I  represent.  I  would  do  great  injustice  to  my  own  feel- 
ings did  I  not  add  that  it  affords  me  great  pleasure  to  look  upon  my 
brethren  whom  I  have  known  in  years  gone  by.  I  thank  God  for 
his  preserving  kindness,  and  for  his  blessings  conferred  upon  you. 
It  also  gives  me  pleasure  to  be  present  at  your  deliberations,  and  I 
pray  that  grace  may  be  with  all  them  that  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
in  sincerity." 

Dr.  Harris  being  invited  to  address  the  Conference,  said :  "  It  is 
impossible  for  me  to  add  any  thing  to  what  has  already  been  said, 
except  that  I  viost  cordially  agree  with  the  Bishop  touching  the  feel- 
ing of  the  Church  and  the  purpose  of  the  Commission  which  we  rep- 
resent." 

Dr.  Keener  said:  "I  have  listened,  together  with  the  rest  of  my 
brethren,  with  great  pleasure  to  the  Christian  and  very  earnest  spirit 
of  our  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Coming  to  us 
as  they  do,  across  a  period  of  disaster  and  division,  they  are  especially 
grateful  to  us.  As  to  this  proposition  which  comes  to  us  with  the 
prestige  of  their  Church,  I  think  we  should  pause  for  a  moment  to 
examine  into  its  meaning.  If  I  understand  the  Journal  of  the  AI. 
E.  Church  on  this  point,  this  Commission  extends  to  the  African  M. 
E.  Zion  Church,  and  to  all  other  Methodist  Churches  wishing  to  seek 
■anion  with  them.  I  will  read  the  resolution  adopted  by  them  on 
this  question  from  the  Journal  of  the  last  General  Conference  of  the 
M.  E.  Church,  which  I  hold  in  my  hand : 

*'  'Resolved,  That  the  Commission  ordered  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence to  confer  with  a  like  Commission  from  the  African  M.  E.  Zion 
Church,  to  arrange  for  the  union  of  that  body  with  our  own,  be  also 
empowered  to  treat  with  a  similar  Commission  from  any  other  Meth- 
odist Church  that  may  desire  a  like  union.' 

"  If  I  understand  that,  this  Commission  is  to  treat  with  any 
Churches  that  may  be  knocking  for  admission  at  the  door  of  the  M. 
E.  Church,  and  not  to  knock  for  admission  at  the  door  of  any  other 
Church.  If  this  be  the  condition  of  things,  then  there  is  a  great 
difficulty  in  entertaining  any  proposition  looking  to  union,  because 
of  the  original  instructions  of  their  Conference.  But  if  they  come 
before  us  desiring  fraternal  intercourse,  another  difficulty  presents 
itself — they  do  not  come  authorized  to  negotiate  for  union,     I  there- 


640  APPENDIX. 

fore  offer  the  following  resolutions,  whicli  I  move  to  be  referred  to  a 
special  committee  to  be  appointed  on  this  question : 

''Resolved,  1.  That  gratefully  recognizing  that  Providence  which 
has  hitherto  guided  us,  multiplied  us,  and  strengthened  our  hands 
under  trying  conditions,  both  of  war  and  peace,  as  a  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ,  we  earnestly  desire  to  cultivate  true  Christian  fellowship  with 
every  other  branch  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  especially  with  our 
brethren  of  the  several  branches  of  Methodism  in  this  country  and 
in  Europe. 

"  2.  That  the  action  of  our  Board  of  Bishops  at  their  last  annual 
meeting  in  St.  Louis,  in  response  to  the  Message  from  the  Board  of 
Bishops  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  has  the  full  indorsement  of  this  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  accurately  defines  our  position  in  reference  to 
any.  overtures  which  may  proceed  from  that  Church,  having  in  them 
an  official  and  proper  recognition  of  this  body. 

"  3.  That  the  distinguished  Commission  now  present,  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  M.  E.  Church  at  Chicago  in  May,  1868,  appointed 
by  it  specifically,  to  confer  with  Commissioners  from  the  African  M. 
E.  Zion  Church,  to  arrange  for  union  with  that  body,  and  to  treat 
with  a  similar  Commission  from  any  other  Church  which  may  desire 
a  like  union,  cannot,  in  our  judgment,  be  construed,  without  great 
violence,  as  having  been  constituted  by  that  General  Conference,  a 
committee  to  bear  its  fraternal  expressions  to  the  General  Conference 
of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South. 

"  4.  That  we  are  highly  gratified  at  the  visit  of  the  Commission  as 
indicative  of  the  return  of  proper  Christian  sentiments  and  relations 
between  the  two  great  branches  of  Northern  and  Southern  Method- 
ism, and  that  we  extend  to  them  personally  our  highest  regards  as 
brethren  beloved  in  the  Lord." 

J.  E.  Evans  moved  to  appoint  a  Committee  of  Nine  to  take  this 
subject  under  consideration. 

Bishop  Janes  said:  " It  is  proper  for  me  to  say,  before  that  motion 
is  put,  that  of  course  we  abide  by  what  is  said  in  the  Journal  of  the 
General  Conference,  and  yet  I  think  it  does  not  correctly  represent 
the  object  of  the  appointment  of  this  Commission.  It  was  not 
appointed  with  the  sole  object  of  conferring  with  the  Commission  of 
the  African  M.  E.  Zion  Church,  but  before  its  appointment  this  sub- 
ject in  question  came  up,  and  this  Commission  was  appointed  with  the 
understanding  that  it  was  alike  to  the  Methodist  Churches  through- 
out the  country.  Perhaps  we  have  transcended  our  bounds  in  thus 
coming  at  the  present  time,  and  not  waiting  to  be  first  approached 


APPENDIX.  641 

on  this  subject.  But  we  did  not  esteem  ourselves  so  highly  iis  to 
think  that  all  these  Churches  should  first  knock  for  admission.  We 
judged  it  proper  to  inform  these  Churches  of  the  appointment  of  this 
Commission,  and  that  it  would  give  us  pleasure  to  meet  them.  I 
think  this  explanation  is  due.  Dr.  Keener's  remarks  were  justified 
by  what  he  has  read  from  the  Journal." 
.     The  motion  of  J.  E.  Evans  prevailed. 

Bif^hop  Janes  rose  and  said:  "My  colleague  thinks  that  I  have 
made  a  mistake  in  my  remarks  concerning  the  Journal  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  I  meant  to  say  that  I  do  not  think  the  Journal 
represents  fully  the  action  of  the  Conference.  The  Commission  was 
provided  for  in  that  resolution,  but  not  appointed  at  that  time." 

A.  L.  P.  Green,  Trusten  Polk,  J.  C.  Keener,  L.  C.  Garland,  Robert 
Alexander,  James  Jackson,  A.  W.  Wilson,  G.  W.  Williams,  and  E.  K. 
Miller,  were  appointed  the  committee  to  which  the  subject  was  referred. 

In  their  first  communication  to  the  Conference,  Bishop  Janes  and 
Dr.  Harris  informed  the  body  that  they  could  only  remain  in  Mem- 
phis for  a  short  time.  On  the  12th  of  May  they  appeared  in  the 
Conference -room,  before  leaving,  and  were  invited  to  address  the 
Conference.     Bishop  Janes  said: 

"  I  very  much  regret  that  circumstances  make  it  necessary  for  me 
to  leave  your  Conference  and  your  city  this  afternoon.  It  would 
have  been  a  very  high  gratification  to  me  to  have  enjoyed  your 
society;  especially  am  I  interested  in  witnessing  your  proceedings, 
as  this  is  the  first  Conference  in  which  I  have  seen  the  action  of  lay 
delegation,  and  I  confess  that  what  I  have  witnessed  has  given  me 
much  pleasure.  I  think  I  can  say  that  I  anticipate,  though  it  is  not 
positively  certain,  that  the  laity  will  be  associated  with  us  in  the 
highest  legislations  of  our  Church.  I  especially  regret  the  necessity 
of  leaving  at  this  time,  since  the  Committee  on  Public  Worship  has 
invited  us  to  preach.  I  wish  it  understood  that  I  do  not  decline 
from  any  other  reason  but  that  I  am  compelled  to  be  absent  on  other 
important  business.  I  hope  it  will  be  understood.  It  would  cer- 
tainly be  a  pleasure  to  me  to  remain  and  to  listen  as  I  have  done  to 
others  of  you. 

"I  desire  to  acknowledge  thankfully  the  generous  hospitality 
extended  to  me  by  the  committee,  and  I  wish  to  acknowledge  the 
official  and  personal  courtesy  extended  to  me  as  a  body,  and  by  a 
very  large  part  of  the  Conference  as  individuals.  I  think  that  I  can 
say,  in  behalf  of  those  whom  we  represent,  that  it  will  give  us  pleasure 
to  reciprocate  it  at  any  time.  I  again  invoke  the  blessing  of  our  com- 
28* 


642  APPENDIX. 

mon  Parent  and  our  one  Saviour  upon  the  individuals  of  this  Confer- 
ence, and  the  Church  you  represent.  May  the  blessing  of  God  be  and 
abide  with  you  all!     Amen." 

The  Bishop  having  taken  his  seat,  Dr.  Harris  arosQ  and  said: 
"I  desire  to  say  that  I  have  spent  the  last  two  days  with  great 
personal  satisfaction.  I  came  here  a  stranger,  acquainted  with  only 
two  of  your  body,  and  they  received  me  as  old  friends,  and  I  recip- 
rocate the  feelings  which  they  expressed  ;  and  now,  in  leaving,  I 
desire  to  express  to  you,  and  through  you  to  the  committee,  my  pro- 
found thanks  for  the  Christian  courtesy  which  you  have  extended  to 
me.  I  shall  bear  it  ever  in  mind.  And  I  unite  with  the  Bishop  in 
invoking  the  richest  blessings  upon  you  and  upon  your  Church." 

The  committee  to  whom  the  subject  was  intrusted  was  large  and 
influential,  and  was  composed  of  ministers  and  laymen.  They  sub- 
mitted their  report  on  the  14th  of  May,  which  is  as  follows : 

The  committtee  to  whom  were  referred  the  papers  relating  to  the 
proposals  of  union  made  by  the  Commission  from  the  Mechodist 
Episcopal  Church,  having  carefully  considered  the  subjecc,  recom- 
mend the  adoption  of  the  following  resolutions : 

Hesolved,  1.  That  gratefully  recognizing  that  Providence  which  has 
hitherto  guided  us,  multiplied  us,  strengthened  our  hands,  and  pre- 
served our  integrity  as  a  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  under  the  trying 
conditions  both  of  war  and  peace,  we  earnestly  desire  to  cultivate 
true  Christian  fellowship  with  every  other  branch  of  the  Christian 
Church,  and  especially  with  our  brethren  of  the  several  branches  of 
Methodism  in  this  country  and  in  Europe. 

2.  That  the  action  of  our  Bishops  in  their  last  annual  meeting  in 
St.  Louis,  in  response  to  the  message  from  the  Bishops  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  has  the  full  indorsement  of  this  General  Con- 
ference, and  accurately  defines  our  position  in  reference  to  any  over- 
tures which  may  proceed  from  that  Church,  having  in  them  an  official 
and  proper  recognition  of  this  body. 

3.  That  the  distinguished  Commission  now  present,  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  met  at  Chicago  ia 
May,  1868,  appointed  by  it  for  the  specific  purpose  expressed  in  th« 
following  resolution,  viz.,  ''Resolved,  That  the  Commission  ordered 
by  the  General  Conference  to  confer  with  a  like  Commission  from  th# 
African  M.  E.  Zion  Church  to  arrange  for  the  union  of  that  body 
with  our  own,  be  also  empowered  to  treat  with  similar  Commissions 
from  any  other  Methodist  Church  that  may  desire  a  like  union,"  can- 


APPENDIX.  643 

not,  in  our  judgment,  without  great  violence  in  construing  the  lan- 
guage of  said  resolution,  be  regarded  as  having  been  constituted  by 
that  General  Conference  a  Commission  to  make  proposals  of  union 
to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

4,  Resolved,  moreover.  That  if  this  distinguished  Commission  were 
fully  clothed  with  authority  to  treat  with  us  for  union,  it  is  the  judg- 
ment of  this  Conference  that  the  true  interests  of  the  Church  of  Christ 
require  and  demand  the  maintenance  of  our  separate  and  distinct 
organization. 

5.  That  we  tender  to  the  Rev,  Bishop  E.  S.  Janes,  and  the  Rev. 
W.  L.  Harris,  D.D.*the  members  of  the  Commission  now  with  us,  our 
high  regards  as  brethren  beloved  in  the  Lord,  and  express  our  desire 
that  the  day  may  soon  come  when  proper  Christian  sentiments  and 
fraternal  relations  between  the  two  great  branches  of  Northern  and 
Southern  Methodism  shall  be  permanently  established. 

A.  L.  P.  Green,         J.  C.  Keenee, 

A.  W.  Wilson,  L.  C.  Garland, 
James  Jackson,         Geo.  W.  Williams, 

~  -  E,  K.  Miller,  Trusten  Polk. 

B.  Alexander, 

The  action  of  the  General  Conference  reflected  the  sentiments  of 
the  entire  M.  E.  Church,  South,  both  in  the  ministry  and  laity.  No 
discordant  note  came  up  from  any  quarter  to  disturb  the  harmony  of 
sentiment. 


D. 


DECISION  OF  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES. 


William  A.  Smith  and  others,  v.  Leroy  Swoemstedt  and  others. 

16  H.  288. 

Upon  a  bill  in  equity  by  several  traveling  preachers  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  South,  in  behalf  of  themselves  and  the  other  traveling  preach- 
ers of  that  organization,  held, 

1.  That  as  numerous  parties  had  a  common  interest  in  the  fund  in  contro- 
versy, a  few  might  sue,  representing  the  others. 

2.  That  the  General  Conference,  in  1844,  had  power  to  consent  to  the  division 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  two  bodies,  and  that  the  separation 
was  not  a  secession  of  a  part  of  the  traveHng  preachers  from  that  Church, 
but  a  division,  in  pursuance  of  proper  authority. 

3.  That  this  division  carried  with  it,  as  matter  of  law,  a  division  of  the  common 
property,  which  belonged  to  the  traveling  preachers,  as  such. 

4.  That  the  removal  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  was  not  a  condition  to  the 
enjoyment  by  the  Church,  South,  of  its  share  of  the  common  fund,  but  to 
enable  the  General  Conference  to  make  the  division. 

6.  That  as  the  complainants  not  only  represent  the  otber  traveling  preachers 
South,  but  the  "  Book  Concern  "  there,  the  share  of  tlie  fund  they  thus  rep- 
resent may  properly  be  paid  over  to  them. 

The  case  is  stated  in  the  opinion  of  the  court. 

Stanherry,  for  the  appellants. 

Badger  and  Ewing,  contra. 

Nelson,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  court. 

This  is  an  appeal  from  a  decree  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  District  of  Ohio. 

The  bill  is  filed  by  the  complainants,  for  themselves,  and  in  behalf 
of  the  traveling  and  worn-out  preachers  in  connection  with  the  soci- 
ety of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  the  United  States, 
against  the  defendants,  to  recover  their  share  of  a  fund  called  the 
Book  Concern,  at  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  consisting  of  houses,  ma- 

(644) 


APPENDIX.  645 

chinery,  printing-presses,  book-bindery,  books,  etc.,  claimed  to  be  of 
the  value  of  some  $200,000. 

The  bill  charges  that,  at  and  before  the  year  1844,  there  existed  in 
the  United  States  a  voluntary  association  unincorporated,  known  as 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  composed  of  seven  Bishops,  four 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty-eight  preachers  belonging  to  the 
traveling  connection,  and  in  Bishops,  ministers,  and  members,  about 
one  million  one  hundred  and  nine  thousand  nine  hundred  and  sixty, 
united  and  bound  together  in  one  organized  body  by  certain  doc- 
trines of  faith  and  morals,  and  by  certain  rules  of  government  and 
discipline. 

That  the  government  of  the  Church  was  vested  in  one  body  called 
the  General  Conference,  and  in  certain  subordinate  bodies  called  An- 
nual Conferences,  and  in  Bishops,  traveling  ministers,  and  preachers. 

The  bill  refers  to  a  printed  volume,  entitled  "  The  Doctrines  and 
Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  as  containing  the 
constitution,  organization,  form  of  Government,  and  rules  of  disci- 
pline, as  well  as  the  doctrines  of  faith  of  the  association. 

The  complainants  farther  charge,  that  differences  and  disagree- 
ments had  sprung  up  in  the  Church  between  what  was  called  the 
Northern  and  Southern  members,  in  respect  to  the  administration  of 
the  government  with  reference  to  the  ownership  of  slaves  by  the  min- 
isters of  the  Church,  of  such  a  character  and  attended  with  such  con- 
sequences as  threatened  greatly  to  impair  its  usefulness,  as  well  as 
permanently  to  disturb  its  harmony;  and  it  became  and  was  a  ques- 
tion of  grave  and  serious  importance  whether  a  separation  ought  not 
to  take  place,  according  to  some  geographical  boundary  to  be  agreed 
upon,  so  as  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  should  thereafter 
constitute  two  separate  and  distinct  organizations.  And  that,  accord- 
ingly, at  a  session  of  the  General  Conference  held  in  the  city  of  New 
York  in  May,  1844,  a  resolution  was  passed  by  a  majority  of  over 
three-fourths  of  the  body,  by  which  it  was  determined,  that  if  the 
Annual  Conferences  of  the  slaveholding  States  should  find  it  neces- 
sary to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connection,  the  following  rule 
should  be  observed  with  regard  to  the  Northern  boundary  of  such 
connection — all  the  societies,  stations,  and  Conferences  adhering  to 
the  Church  in  the  South,  by  a  vote  of  a  majority  of  the  members, 
should  remain  under  the  pastoral  care  of  the  Southern  Church  ;  and 
all  adhering  to  the  Church,  North,  by  a  like  vote,  should  remain  under 
the  pastoral  care  of  that  Church.  This  Plan  of  Separation  contains 
eleven  other  resolutions,  relating  principally  to  the  mode  and  terma 


646  APPENDIX. 

of  the  division  of  the  common  property  of  the  association  between 
the  two  divisions,  in  case  the  separation  contemplated  should  take 
place;  and  which,  in  effect,  provide  for  a  pro  rata  division,  taking 
the  number  of  the  traveling  preachers  in  the  Church,  North  and  South, 
as  the  basis  upon  which  to  make  the  partition. 

The  complainants  farther  charge  that,  in  pursuance  of  the  above 
resolutions,  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  met 
and  resolved  in  favor  of  a  distinct  and  independent  organization,  and 
erected  themselves  into  a  separate  ecclesiastical  connection,  under  the 
provisional  Plan  of  Separation,  based  upon  the  Discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  to  be  known  as  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  South.  And  they  insist  that,  by  virtue  of  these  pro- 
ceedings, this  Church,  as  it  had  existed  in  the  United  States  previous 
to  the  year  1844,  became  and  was  divided  into  two  separate  Churches, 
with  distinct  and  independent  powers,  and  authority  composed  of  the 
several  Annual  Conferences,  stations,  and  societies,  lying  North  and 
South  of  the  aforesaid  line  of  division.  And  also,  that  by  force  of 
the  same  proceedings,  the  division  of  the  Church,  South,  became  and 
was  entitled  to  its  proportion  of  the  common  property,  real  and  per- 
sonal, of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  which  belonged  to  it  at 
the  time  the  separation  took  place;  that  the  property  and  funds  of 
the  Church  had  been  obtained  by  voluntary  contributions,  to  which 
the  members  of  the  Church,  South,  had  contributed  more  than  their 
full  share,  and  which,  down  to  the  time  of  the  separation,  belonged 
in  common  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  then  organized. 

The  complainants  charge  that  they  are  members  of  the  Church, 
South,  and  preachers,  some  of  them  supernumerary,  and  some  super- 
annuated preachers,  and  belonged  to  the  traveling  connection  of  said 
Church ;  and  that,  as  such,  have  a  personal  interest  in  the  property, 
real  and  personal,  held  by  the  Church,  North,  and  in  the  hands  of  the 
defendants ;  and,  farther,  that  there  are  about  fifteen  hundred  [»reachers 
belonging  to  the  traveling  connection  of  the  Church,  South,  each  of 
whom  has  a  direct  and  personal  interest  in  the  same  right  with  the 
complainants  in  the  said  property,  the  large  number  of  whom  make 
it  inconvenient  and  impracticable  to  bring  them  all  before  the  court 
as  complainants. 

They  also  charge  that  the  defendants  are  members  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  North ;  and  that  each,  as  such,  has  a  personal 
interest  in  the  property;  and,  farther,  that  two  of  them  have  the  cus- 
tody and  control  of  the  fund  in  question ;  and  that,  in  addition  to 
these  defendants,  there  are  nearly  thirty-eight  hundred  j>reachers  be- 


APPENDIX.  647 

longing  to  the  traveling  connection  of  the  Church,  North,  each  of 
whom  has  an  interest  in  the  fund  in  the  same  right,  so  that  it  is  im- 
possible, in  view  of  sustaining  a  just  decision  in  the  matter,  to  make 
them  all  parties  to  the  bill. 

The  complainants  also  aver  that  this  bill  is  brought  by  the  author- 
ity, and  under  the  direction,  of  the  General  and  Annual  Confer- 
ences of  the  Church,  South,  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  same,  and 
for  themselves,  and  all  the  preachers  in  the  traveling  connection, 
and  all  other  ministers  and  persons  having  an  interest  in  the  prop- 
erty. 

The  defendants,  in  their  answer,  admit  most  of  the  facts  charged 
in  the  bill,  as  it  respects  the  organization,  government,  discipline,  and 
faith  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  it  existed  at  and  previ- 
ous to  the  year  1844.  They  admit  the  passage  of  the  resolutions, 
called  the  Plan  of  Separation,  at  the  session  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  that  year,  by  the  majority  stated  ;  but  deny  that  the  resolu- 
tions were  duly  and  legally  passed ;  and  also  deny  that  the  General 
Conference  possessed  the  competent  power  to  pass  them,  and  submit 
that  they  were  therefore  null  and  void.  They  also  submit  that,  if 
the  General  Conference  possessed  the  power,  the  separation  contem- 
plated was  made  dependent  upon  certain  conditions,  and  among 
others  a  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article  in  the  constitution  of 
the  Church,  by  a  vote  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  which  vote  the 
Baid  Conferences  refused. 

The  defendants  admit  the  erection  of  the  Church,  South,  into  a 
distinct  ecclesiastical  organization ;  but  deny  that  this  was  done 
agreeably  to  the  Plan  of  Separation.  They  deny  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  as  it  existed  in  1844,  or  at  any  time,  has  been  di- 
vided into  two  disttnct  and  separate  ecclesiastical  organizations ;  and 
submit  that  the  separation  and  voluntary  withdrawal  from  this 
Church  of  a  portion  of  the  Bishops,  ministers,  and  members,  and  or- 
ganization into  a  Church,  South,  was  an  unauthorized  separation ; 
and  that  they  have  thereby  renounced  and  forfeited  all  claim,  either 
in  law  or  equity,  to  any  portion  of  the  property  in  question.  The 
defendants  admit  that  the  Book  Concern  at  Cincinnati,  with  all  the 
houses,  lots,  printing-presses,  etc.,  is  now,  and  always  has  been,  ben- 
eficially the  property  of  the  preachers  belonging  to  the  traveling 
connection  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  but  insist  that,  if 
such  preachers  do  not,  during  life,  continue  in  such  traveling  con- 
nection, and  in  the  communion,  and  subject  to  the  government  of 
the  Church,  they  forfeit  for  themselves  and  their  families  all  owner* 


6^  APPENDIX. 

ship  in,  or  claim  to,  the  said  Book  Concern,  and  the  produce  thereof; 
they  admit  that  the  Book  Concern  was  originally  commenced  and  es- 
tablished by  the  traveling  preachers  of  this  Church,  upon  their  own 
capital,  with  the  design,  in  the  first  place,  of  circulating  religious 
knowledge,  and  that,  at  the  General  Conference  of  1796,  it  was  de- 
termined that  the  profits  derived  from  the  sale  of  books  should  in 
future  be  devoted  wholly  to  the  relief  of  traveling  preachers,  super- 
numerary and  worn-out  preachers,  and  the  widows  and  orphans  of 
such  preachers — and  the  defendants  submit  that  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  is  not  entitled  at  law  or  in  equity  to  have  a  di- 
vision of  the  property  of  the  Book  Concern,  or  the  produce,  or  to 
any  portion  thereof ;  and  that  the  ministers,  preachers,  or  members, 
in  connection  with  such  Church,  are  not  entitled  to  any  portion  of 
the  same ;  and  farther,  that,  being  no  longer  traveling  preachers  be- 
longing to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  they  are  not  so  entitled, 
without  a  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article  of  the  constitution 
of  1808,  provided  for  in  the  Plan  of  Separation,  as  a  condition  of  the 
partition  of  said  fund. 

The  proofs  in  the  case  consist  chiefly  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1844,  relating  to  the  separation  of  the  Church 
and  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Southern  Conferences,  in  pursuance  of 
which  a  distinct  and  separate  ecclesiastical  organization  South  took 
place. 

There  is  no  material  controversy  between  the  parties,  as  it  respects 
the  facts.  The  main  difference  lies  in  the  interpretation  and  effect  to 
be  given  to  the  acts  and  proceedings  of  these  several  bodies  and  au- 
thorities of  the  Church.  Our  opinion  will  be  founded  almost  wholly 
upon  facts  alleged  in  the  bill,  and  admitted  in  the  answer. 

An  objection  was  taken,  on  the  argument,  to  the  bill  for  want  of 
proper  parties  to  maintain  the  suit.  We  think  the  objection  not  well 
founded. 

The  rule  is  well  established,  that  where  the  parties  interested  are 
numerous,  and  the  suit  is  for  an  object  common  to  them  all,  some  of 
the  body  may  maintain  a  bill  on  behalf  of  themselves  and  of  the 
others  ;  and  a  bill  may  also  be  maintained  against  a  portion  of  a  nu- 
merous body  of  defendants,  representing  a  common  interest.  Story's 
Eq.  PI.  U  97,  98,  99,  103,  107,  110,  111,  116,  120;  2  Mitf.  PL  (Jer. 
Ed.)  167;  2  Paige,  19;  4  Mylne  &  Cr.  134,  619;  2  De  Gex  &  Smale, 
102,  122. 

Story,  J.,  in  his  valuable  treatise  on  Equity  Pleadings,  after  dis- 
cussing this  subject,  with  his  usual  research  and  fullness,  arranges  the 


APPENDIX.  649 

exceptions  to  the  general  rule  as  follows :  1.  Where  the  question  is 
one  of  a  common  or  general  interest,  and  one  or  more  sue  or  defend 
for  the  benefit  of  the  whole.  2.  Where  the  parties  form  a  voluntary- 
association  for  public  or  private  purposes,  and  those  wlio  sue  or  de- 
fend may  fairly  be  presumed  to  represent  the  rights  and  interests  of 
the  whole ;  and,  3.  Where  the  parties  are  very  numerous,  and  though 
they  have  or  may  have  separate  and  distinct  interests,  yet  it  is  im- 
practicable to  bring  them  all  before  the  court. 

In  this  latter  class,  though  the  rights  of  the  several  persons  may 
be  separate  and  distinct,  yet  there  must  be  a  common  interest  or  a 
common  right,  which  the  bill  seeks  to  establish  or  enforce.  As  an 
illustration,  bills  have  been  permitted  to  be  brought  by  the  lord  of  a 
manor  against  some  of  the  tenants,  and  vich  versa,  by  some  of  the 
tenants,  in  behalf  of  themselves  and  the  other  tenants,  to  establish 
some  right — such  as  suit  to  a  mill,  or  right  of  common,  or  to  cut  turf. 
So  by  a  parson  of  a  parish  against  some  of  the  parishioners  to  estab- 
lish a  general  right  to  tithes — or  conversely,  by  some  of  the  parish- 
ioners, in  behalf  of  all,  to  establish  a  parochial  modus. 

In  all  cases  where  exceptions  to  the  general  rule  are  allowed,  and 
a  few  are  permitted  to  sue  and  defend  on  behalf  of  the  many,  by 
representation,  care  must  be  taken  that  persons  are  brought  on  the 
record  fairly  representing  the  interest  or  right  involved,  so  that  it 
may  be  fully  and  honestly  tried. 

Where  the  parties  interested  in  the  suit  are  numerous,  their  rights 
and  liabilities  are  so  subject  to  change  and  fluctuation  by  death  or 
otherwise,  that  it  would  not  be  possible,  without  very  great  incon- 
venience, to  make  all  of  them  parties,  and  would  oftentimes  prevent 
the  prosecution  of  the  suit  to  a  hearing.  For  convenience,  therefore, 
and  to  prevent  a  failure  of  justice,  a  court  of  equity  permits  a  por- 
tion of  the  parties  in  interest  to  represent  the  entire  body,  and  the 
decree  binds  all  of  them  the  same  as  if  all  were  before  the  court. 
The  legal  and  equitable  rights  and  liabilities  of  all  being  before  the 
court  by  representation,  and  especially  where  the  subject-matter  of 
the  suit  is  common  to  all,  there  can  be  very  little  danger  but  that  the 
interest  of  all  will  be  properly  protected  and  maintained. 

The  case  in  hand  illustrates  the  propriety  and  fitness  of  the  rule. 
There  are  some  fifteen  hundred  persons  represented  by  the  complain- 
ants, and  over  double  that  number  by  the  defendants.  It  is  manifest 
that  to  require  all  the  parties  to  be  brought  upon  the  record,  as  is  re- 
quired in  a  suit  at  law,  would  amount  to  a  denial  of  justice.  The 
right  might  be  defeated  by  objections  to  parties,  from  the  difficulty 

29 


650  APPENDIX. 

of  ascertaining  them,  or,  if  ascertained,  from  the  changes  constantly 
occurring  by  death  or  otherwise. 

As  it  respects  the  persons  into  whose  hands  the  fund  in  question 
should  be  delivered  for  the  purpose  of  distribution  among  the  bene- 
ficiaries, in  case  of  a  division  of  it,  we  shall  recur  to  the  subject  in 
another  part  of  this  opinion. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  an  examination  of  the  merits  of  the  case. 

The  Book  Concern,  the  property  in  question,  is  a  part  of  a  fund 
which  had  its  origin  at  a  very  early  day,  from  the  voluntary  contri- 
butions of  the  traveling  preachers  in  the  connection  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  The  establishment  was  at  first  small,  but  at  pres- 
ent, is  one  of  very  large  capital,  and  of  extensive  operations,  pro- 
ducing great  profits.  In  1796,  the  traveling  preachers,  in  General 
Conference  assembled,  determined  that  these  profits  should  be  there- 
after devoted  to  the  relief  of  the  traveling  preachers,  and  their  fami- 
lies :  and,  accordingly,  resolved  that  the  produce  of  the  sale  of  the  books, 
after  the  debts  were  paid,  and  sufiicient  capital  provided  for  carry- 
ing on  the  business,  should  be  applied  for  the  relief  of  distressed 
traveling  preachers,  for  the  families  of  traveling  preachers,  and  for 
supernumerary  and  worn-out  preachers,  and  the  widows  and  orphans 
of  preachers. 

The  establishment  was  placed  under  the  care  and  superintendence 
of  the  General  Conference,  the  highest  authority  in  the  Church,  which 
was  composed  of  the  traveling  preachers ;  and  it  has  grown  up  to  its 
present  magnitude,  its  capital  amounting  to  nearly  a  million  of  dol- 
lars, from  the  economy  and  skill  with  which  the  concern  has  been 
managed,  and  from  the  labors  and  fidelity  of  the  traveling  preach- 
ers, who  have  always  had  the  charge  of  the  circulation  and  sale  of 
the  books  in  the  Methodist  connection  throughout  the  United  States, 
accounting  to  the  proper  authorities  for  the  proceeds.  The  agents 
who  have  the  immediate  charge  of  the  establishment  make  up  a 
yearly  account  of  the  profits,  and  transmit  the  same  to  the  several 
Annual  Conferences,  each  an  amount  in  proportion  to  the  number 
of  traveling  preachers,  their  widows  and  orphans  comprehended 
within  it,  which  bodies  distribute  the  fund  to  the  beneficiaries  indi- 
vidually, agreeably  to  the  design  of  the  original  founders.  These 
several  Annual  Conferences  are  composed  of  the  traveling  preachers 
residing  or  located  within  certain  districts  assigned  to  them,  and 
comprehended,  in  the  aggregate,  the  entire  body  in  connection  with 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  fund  has  been  thus  faithfully 
administered  since  its  foundation  down  to  1846,  when  the  portion  be- 


APPENDIX.  651 

longing  to  the  complainants  in  this  suit,  and  those  they  represent, 
was  withheld,  embracing  some  thirteen  of  the  Annual  Conferences. 

In  the  year  1844,  the  traveling  preachers,  in  General  Conference 
assembled,  for  causes  which  it  is  not  important  particularly  to  refer 
to,  agreed  upon  a  plan  for  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  case  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  should 
deem  it  necessary ;  and  to  the  erection  of  two  separate  and  distinct 
ecclesiastical  organizations.  And  according  to  this  plan,  it  was 
agreed  that  all  the  societies,  stations,  and  Conferences  adhering  to 
the  Church,  South,  by  a  majority  of  their  respective  members,  should 
remain  vinder  the  pastoral  care  of  that  Church  ;  and  all  of  these  sev- 
eral bodies  adhering,  by  a  majority  of  its  members,  to  the  Church, 
North,  should  remain  under  the  pastoral  care  of  that  Church;  and, 
farther,  that  the  ministers,  local  and  traveling,  should,  as  they  might 
prefer,  attach  themselves,  without  blame,  to  the  Church  North  or 
South.  It  was  also  agreed  that  the  common  property  of  the  Church, 
including  this  Book  Concern,  that  belonged  specially  to  the  body  of 
traveling  preachers,  should,  in  case  the  separation  took  place,  be  di- 
vided between  the  two  Churches  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
traveling  preachers  falling  within  the  respective  divisions.  This  was 
in  1844.  In  the  following  year  the  Southern  Annual  Conferences 
met  in  Convention,  in  pursuance  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  and  de- 
termined upon  a  division,  and  resolved  that  the  Annual  Conferences 
should  be  constituted  into  a  separate  ecclesiastical  connection,  and 
based  upon  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  compre- 
hending the  doctrines  and  entire  moral,  ecclesiastical,  and  economical 
rules  and  regulations  of  said  Discipline,  except  only  so  far  as  verbal 
alterations  might  be  necessary;  and  to  be  known  by  the  name  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

The  division  of  the  Church,  as  originally  constituted,  thus  became 
complete ;  and  from  this  time  two  separate  and  distinct  organizations 
have  taken  the  place  of  the  one  previously  existing. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  having  been  thus  divided,  with 
the  authority  and  according  to  the  plan  of  the  General  Conference,  it 
is  claimed  on  the  part  of  the  complainants,  who  represent  the  travel- 
ing preachers  in  the  Church,  South,  that  they  are  entitled  to  their 
share  of  the  capital  stock  and  profits  of  this  Book  Concern  ;  and  that 
the  withholding  of  it  from  them  is  a  violation  of  the  fundamental 
law  prescribed  by  the  founders,  and  consequently  of  the  trust  upon 
which  it  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  defendants. 

The  principal  answer  set  up  to  this  claim  is,  that,  according  to  tho 


652  APPENDIX. 

original  constitution  and  appropriation  of  the  fund,  the  beneficiaries 
must  be  traveling  preachers,  or  the  widows  and  orphans  of  traveling 
preachers,  in  connection  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  or- 
ganized and  established  in  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  the  foun- 
dation of  the  fund ;  and  that,  as  the  complainants,  and  those  they 
represent,  are  not  shown  to  be  traveling  preachers  in  that  connection, 
but  traveling  preachers  in  connection  with  a  different  ecclesiastical 
organization,  they  have  forfeited  their  right,  and  are  no  longer  within 
the  description  of  its  beneficiaries. 

This  argument,  we  apprehend,  if  it  proves  any  thing,  proves  too 
much ;  for  if  sound,  the  necessary  consequences  is  that  the  beneficia- 
ries connected  with  the  Church,  North,  as  well  as  South,  have  for- 
feited their  right  to  the  fund.  It  can  no  more  be  affirmed,  either  in 
point  of  fact  or  of  law,  that  they  are  traveling  preachers  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Methodist  Church  as  originally  constituted,  since  the 
division,  than  of  those  in  connection  with  the  Church,  South.  Their 
organization  covers  but  about  half  of  the  territory  embraced  within 
that  of  the  former  Church ;  and  includes  within  it  but  a  little  over 
two-thirds  of  the  traveling  preachers.  Their  General  Conference  is 
not  the  General  Conference  of  the  old  Church,  nor  does  it  represent 
the  interest,  or  possess  territorially  the  authority  of  the  same ;  nor 
are  they  the  body  under  whose  care  this  fund  was  placed  by  its  foun- 
ders. It  may  be  admitted  that,  wiihin  the  restricted  limits,  the  or- 
ganization and  authority  are  the  same  as  the  former  Church.  But 
the  same  is  equally  true  in  respect  to  the  organization  of  the  Church, 
South. 

Assuming,  therefore,  that  this  argument  is  well  founded,  the  con- 
sequence is  that  all  the  beneficiaries  of  the  fund,  whether  in  the 
Southern  or  Northern  division,  are  deprived  of  any  right  to  a  distri- 
bution, not  being  in  a  condition  to  bring  themselves  within  the  de- 
scription of  persons  for  whose  benefit  it  was  established ;  in  which 
event  the  foundation  of  the  fund  would  become  broken  up,  and  the 
capital  revert  to  the  original  proprietors,  a  result  that  would  differ 
very  little  in  its  effect  from  that  sought  to  be  produced  by  the  com- 
plainants in  their  bill. 

It  is  insisted,  however,  that  the  General  Conference  of  1844  pos- 
sessed no  power  to  divide  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  then 
organized,  or  to  consent  to  such  division ;  and  hence,  that  the  organ- 
ization of  the  Church,  South,  was  without  authority,  and  the  travel- 
ing preachers  within  it  separated  from  an  ecclesiastical  connection 
which  is  essential  to  enable  them  to  participate  as  beneficiaries.  Evea 


appendix/  653 

if  this  were  admitted,  we  do  not  perceive  that  it  would  change  the 
relative  position  and  rights  of  the  traveling  preachers  within  the 
divisions  North  and  South,  from  that  which  we  have  just  endeavored 
to  explain.  If  the  division  under  the  direction  of  the  General  Con- 
ference has  been  made  without  the  proper  authority,  and  for  that 
reason  the  traveling  preachers  within  the  Southern  division  are 
wrongfully  separated  from  their  connection  with  the  Church,  and 
thereby  have  lost  the  character  of  beneficiaries;  those  within  the 
Northern  division  are  equally  wrongfully  separated  from  that  con- 
nection, as  both  divisions  have  been  brought  into  existence  by  the 
same  authority.  The  same  consequence  would  follow  in  respect  to 
them,  that  is  imputable  to  the  traveling  preachers  in  the  other  divis- 
ion, and  hence  each  would  be  obliged  to  fall  back  upon  their  rights 
as  original  proprietors  of  the  fund. 

But  we  do  not  agree  that  this  division  was  made  without  the  proper 
authority.  On  the  contrary,  we  entertain  no  doubt  but  that  the 
General  Conference  of  1844  was  competent  to  make  it ;  and  that  each 
division  of  the  Church,  under  the  separate  organization,  is  just  as 
legitimate,  and  can  claim  as  high  a  sanction,  ecclesiastical  and  tem- 
poral, as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  first  founded  in  the  United 
States.  The  same  authority  which  founded  that  Church  in  1784  has 
divided  it,  and  established  two  separate  and  independent  organiza- 
tions, occupying  the  place  of  the  old  one. 

In  1784,  when  this  Church  was  first  established,  and  down  till 
1808,  the  General  Conference  was  composed  of  all  the  traveling 
preachers  in  that  connection.  This  body  of  preachers  founded  it  by 
organizing  its  government,  ecclesiastical  and  temporal,  established  its 
doctrines  and  discipline,  appointed  its  Superintendents,  or  Bishops,  its 
ministers  and  preachers,  and  other  subordinate  authorities,  to  admin- 
ister its  polity,  and  promulgate  its  doctrines  and  teachings  through- 
out the  land. 

It  cannot,  therefore,  be  denied — indeed,  it  has  scarcely  been  denied — 
that  this  body,  while  composed  of  all  the  traveling  preachers,  pos- 
sessed the  power  to  divide  it,  and  authorize  the  organization  and  es- 
tablishment of  the  two  separate  independent  Churches.  The  power 
must  necessarily  be  regarded  as  inherent  in  the  General  Conference. 
As  they  might  have  constructed  two  ecclesiastical  organizations  over 
the  territory  of  the  United  States  originally,  if  deemed  expedient,  in 
the  place  of  one,  so  they  might,  at  any  subsequent  period,  the  power 
remaining  unchanged. 

But  it  is  insisted  that  this  power  has  been  taken  away  or  given  up 
29* 


654  APPENDIX. 

by  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  1808.  In  that  year  the 
constitution  of  this  body  was  changed  so  as  to  be  composed  there- 
after by  traveling  preachers,  to  be  elected  by  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, in  the  ratio  of  one  for  every  five  members.  This  has  been 
altered  from  time  to  time,  so  that,  in  1844,  the  representation  was 
one  for  every  twenty-one  members.  At  the  time  of  this  change,  and 
as  part  of  it,  certain  limitations  were  imposed  upon  the  powers  of 
this  General  Conference,  called  the  six  restrictive  articles:  1.  That 
they  should  not  alter  or  change  the  articles  of  religion,  or  establish 
any  new  standard  of  doctrine.  2.  Nor  allow  of  more  than  one  rep- 
resentative for  every  fourteen  members  of  the  Annual  Conferences, 
nor  less  than  one  for  every  thirty.  3.  Nor  alter  the  government  so 
as  to  do  away  with  Episcopacy,  or  destroy  the  plan  of  itinerant  su- 
perintendencies,  4.  Nor  change  the  rules  of  the  united  societies.  5. 
Nor  deprive  the  ministers  or  preachers  of  trial  by  a  committee,  and 
of  appeal ;  nor  members  before  the  society,  or  lay  committee,  and  ap- 
peal. And  6.  Nor  appropriate  the  proceeds  of  the  Book  Concern, 
nor  the  Charter  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of 
the  traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out  preach- 
ers, their  wives,  widows,  and  children.  Subject  to  these  restrictions, 
the  delegated  Conference  possessed  the  same  powers  as  when  com- 
posed of  the  entire  body  of  preachers.  And  it  will  be  seen  that  these 
relate  only  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  its  representation  in  the 
General  Conference,  the  Episcopacy,  discipline  of  its  preachers  and 
members,  the  Book  Concern  and  Charter  Fund.  In  all  other  respects, 
and  in  every  thing  else  that  concerns  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  the 
General  Conference  represents  the  sovereign  power  the  same  as  be- 
fore. This  is  the  view  taken  by  the  General  Conference  itself,  as 
exemplified  by  the  usage  and  practice  of  that  body.  In  1820,  they 
set  off  to  the  British  Conference  of  Wesleyan  Methodists  the  several 
circuits  and  societies  in  Lower  Cauda.  And  in  1828,  they  separated 
the  Annual  Conference  of  Upper  Canada  from  their  jurisdiction,  and 
erected  the  same  into  a  distinct  and  independent  Church.  These  in- 
stances, together  with  the  present  division,  in  1844,  furnish  evidence 
of  the  opinions  of  the  eminent  and  experienced  men  of  this  Church 
in  these  several  Conferences,  of  the  power  claimed,  which,  if  the 
question  was  otherwise  doubtful,  should  be  regarded  as  decisive  in 
favor  of  it.  We  will  add,  that  all  the  Northern  Bishops,  five  in  num- 
ber, in  council  in  July,  1845,  acting  under  the  Plan  of  Separation, 
regarded  it  as  of  binding  obligation,  and  conformed  their  action  ac- 
cordingly. 


APPENDIX.  655 

It  has  also  been  urged,  on  the  part  of  the  defendants,  that  the  di- 
vision of  the  Church,  according  to  tlie  Plan  of  the  Separation,  was 
made  to  depend  not  only  upon  the  determination  of  the  Southern 
Annual  Conferences,  but  also  upon  the  consent  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences, North,  as  well  as  South,  to  a  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive 
article ;  and  as  this  was  refused,  the  division  which  took  place  was 
unauthorized.  But  this  is  a  misapprehension.  The  change  of  this 
article  was  not  made  a  condition  of  the  division.  That  depended 
alone  upon  the  decision  of  the  Southern  Conferences. 

The  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  having  thus  taken 
place,  in  pursuance  of  the  proper  authority,  it  carried  with  it,  as 
matter  of  law,  a  division  of  the  common  property  belonging  to  the 
ecclesiastical  organization,  and  especially  of  the  property  in  this 
Book  Concern,  which  belonged  to  the  traveling  preachers.  It  would 
be  strange  if  it  could  be  otherwise,  as  it  respects  the  Book  Concern, 
inasmuch  as  the  division  of  the  association  was  effected  under  the 
authority  of  a  body  of  preachers  who  were  themselves  the  proprie- 
tors and  founders  of  the  fund. 

It  has  been  argued,  however,  that,  according  to  the  Plan  of  Separa- 
tion, the  division  of  the  property  in  this  Book  Concern  was  made  to 
depend  upon  the  vote  of  the  Annual  Conferences  to  change  the  sixth 
restrictive  article,  and  that,  whatever  might  be  the  legal  effect  of 
the  division  of  the  Church  upon  the  common  property  otherwise, 
this  stipulation  controls  it,  and  prevents  a  division  till  the  consent  is 
obtained. 

We  do  not  so  understand  the  Plan  of  Separation.  It  admits  the 
right  of  the  Church,  South,  to  its  share  of  the  common  property,  in 
case  of  a  separation,  and  provides  for  a  partition  of  it  among  the  two 
divisions,  upon  just  and  equitable  principles;  but,  regarding  the  sixth 
restrictive  article  as  a  limitation  upon  the  power  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, as  it  respected  a  division  of  the  property  in  the  Book  Con- 
cern, provision  is  made  to  obtain  a  removal  of  it.  The  removal 
of  this  limitation  is  not  a  condition  to  the  right  of  the  Church, 
South,  to  its  share  of  the  property,  but  is  a  step  taken  in  order  to 
enable  the  General  Conference  to  complete  the  partition  of  the  prop- 
erty. 

We  will  simply  add  that,  as  a  division  of  the  common  property 
followed,  as  matter  of  law,  a  division  of  the  Church-organization, 
nothing  short  of  an  agreement  or  stipulation  of  the  Church,  South, 
to  give  up  their  share  of  it,  could  preclude  the  assertion  of  their  right ; 
and,  it  is  quite  clear,  no  such  agreement  or  stipulation  is  to  be  found 


656  APPENDIX. 

in  the  Plan  of  Separation.  The  contrary  intent  is  manifest  from  a 
perusal  of  it. 

Without  pursuing  the  case  farther,  our  conclusion  is,  that  the  com- 
plainants, and  those  they  represent,  are  entitled  to  their  share  of  the 
property  in  this  Book  Concern.  And  the  proper  decree  will  be  en- 
tered to  carry  this  decision  into  effect. 

The  complainants  represent  not  only  all  the  beneficiaries  in  the 
division  of  the  Church,  South,  but  also  the  General  Conference  and 
the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  same.  The  share,  therefore,  of  this 
Book  Concern  belonging  to  the  beneficiaries  in  that  Church,  and 
which  its  authorities  are  entitled  to  the  safe  keeping  and  charge  of, 
for  their  benefit,  may  be  properly  paid  over  to  the  complainants  as 
the  authorized  agents  for  this  purpose. 

We  shall  accordingly  direct  a  decree  to  be  entered,  reversing  the 
decree  of  the  court  below,  and  remanding  the  proceedings  to  that 
court,  directing  a  decree  to  be  entered  for  the  complainants  against 
the  defendants ;  and  a  reference  of  the  case  to  a  master  to  take  an 
account  of  the  property  belonging  to  the  Book  Concern,  and  report 
to  the  court  its  cash  value,  and  to  ascertain  the  portion  belonging  to 
the  complainants,  which  portion  shall  bear  to  the  whole  amount  of 
the  fund  the  proportion  that  the  traveling  preachers  in  the  division 
of  the  Church,  South,  bore  to  the  traveling  preachers  in  the  Church, 
North,  at  the  time  of  the  division  of  said  Church.  And  on  the  coming 
in  of  the  report,  and  confirmation  of  the  same,  a  decree  shall  be  en- 
tered in  favor  of  the  complainants  for  that  amount. 

Order.  This  cause  came  on  to  be  heard  on  the  transcript  of  the 
record,  from  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  District 
of  Ohio,  and  was  argued  by  counsel.  On  consideration  whereof  it 
is  ordered,  adjudged,  and  decreed  by  this  court  that  the  decree  of 
said  Circuit  Court  in  this  cause  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  reversed 
and  annulled.  And  this  court  doth  farther  find,  adjudge,  and  de- 
cree: 

1.  That,  under  the  resolutions  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  holden  at  the  city  of  New  York,  accord- 
ing to  the  usage  and  Discipline  of  said  Church,  passed  on  the  eighth 
day  of  June,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  forty-four  (in  the  pleadings  mentioned),  it  was,  among  other 
things,  and  in  virtue  of  the  power  of  the  said  General  Conference, 
well  agreed  and  determined  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  as  then  existing,  that,  in  case  the  An- 
nual Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  should  find  it  necessary 


APPENDIX.  657 

to  nnite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connection,  the  ministers,  local  and 
traveling,  of  every  grade  and  office,  in  the  IMethodist  Episcopal 
Church,  might  attach  themselves  to  such  new  ecclesiastical  connec- 
tion, without  blame. 

2.  That  the  said  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  did 
find  and  determine  that  it  was  right,  expedient,  and  necessary  to 
erect  the  Annual  Conferences  last  aforesaid  into  a  distinct  ecclesias- 
tical connection,  based  upon  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  aforesaid,  comprehending  the  doctrines  and  entire  moral 
and  ecclesiastical  rules  and  regulations  of  the  said  Discipline  (except 
only  in  so  far  as  verbal  alterations  might  be  necessary  to,  or  for  a 
distinct  organization),  which  new  ecclesiastical  connection  was  to  be 
known  by  the  name  and  style  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South;  and  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  was  duly 
organized  under  said  resolutions  of  the  said  General  Conference,  and 
the  said  decision  of  said  Annual  Conferences  last  aforesaid,  in  a  Con- 
vention thereof  held  at  Louisville,  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  in  the 
month  of  May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  forty-five. 

3.  That,  by  force  of  the  said  resolutions  of  June  the  eighth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  forty-four,  and  of  the  authority  and  power  of  the  said 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  then  ex- 
isting, by  which  the  same  were  adopted,  and  by  virtue  of  the  said 
finding  and  determination  of  the  said  Annual  Conferences  in  the 
slaveholding  States  therein  mentioned,  and  by  virtue  of  the  organ- 
ization of  such  Conferences  into  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connection 
as  last  aforesaid,  the  religious  association  known  as  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  as  then  existing, 
"was  divided  into  two  associations  or  distinct  Methodist  Episcopal 
Churches,  as  in  the  bill  of  complaint  is  alleged. 

4.  That  the  property  denominated  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  at 
Cincinnati,  in  the  pleadings  mentioned,  was,  at  the  time  of  said  di- 
vision, and  immediately  before,  a  fund  subject  to  the  following  use 
— that  is  to  say,  that  the  profits  arising  therefrom,  after  retaining  a 
Bufl&cient  capital  to  carry  on  the  business  thereof,  were  to  be  regu- 
larly applied  toward  the  support  of  the  deficient  traveling,  supernu- 
merary, superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children,  according  to 
the  rules  and  discipline  of  said  Church ;  and  that  the  said  fund  and 
property  are  held  under  the  act  of  incorporation  in  the  said  answer, 
mentioned  by  the  said  defendants,  Leroy  Swormstedt  and  John  H, 


658  APPENDIX. 

Power,  as  agents  of  said  Book  Concern,  and  in  trust  for  the  purposes 
thereof. 

5.  That,  in  virtue  of  the  said  division  of  said  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  the  deficient  traveling,  supernumerary, 
superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and 
children  comprehended  in,  or  in  connection  with,  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  were,  are,  and  continue  to  be,  beneficiaries  of  the 
said  Book  Concern  to  the  same  extent,  and  as  fully  as  if  the  said  di- 
vision had  not  taken  place,  and  in  the  same  manner  and  degree  as 
persons  of  the  same  description  who  are  comprehended  in,  or  in  con- 
nection with,  the  otheE  association,  denominated*  since  the  division 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ;  and  that  as  well  the  principal  as 
the  profits  of  said  Book  Concern,  since  said  division,  should  of  right 
be  administered  and  managed  by  the  respective  General  and  Annual 
Conferences  of  the  said  two  associations  and  Churches,  under  the 
separate  organizations  thereof,  and  according  to  the  shares  or  propor- 
tions of  the  same  as  hereinafter  mentioned,  and  in  conformity  with 
the  rules  and  discipline  of  said  respective  associations,  so  as  to  carry 
out  the  purposes  and  trusts  aforesaid. 

6.  That  so  much  of  the  capital  and  property  of  said  Book  Concern 
at  Cincinnati,  wherever  situate,  and  so  much  of  the  produce  and 
profits  thereof  as  may  not  have  been  heretofore  accounted  for  to  said 
Church,  South,  in  the  New  York  case  hereinafter  mentioned,  or  other- 
wise, shall  be  paid  to  said  Church, -South,  according  to  the  rate  and 
proportions  following — that  is  to  say,  in  respect  to  the  capital,  such 
share  or  part  as  corresponds  with  the  proportion  which  the  number 
of  the  traveling  preachers  in  the  Annual  Conferences  which  formed 
themselves  into  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  bore  to  the 
number  of  all  the  traveling  preachers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  before  the  division  thereof,  which  numbers  shall  be  fixed 
and  ascertained  as  they  are  shown  by  the  minutes  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  next  preceding  the  said  division  and  new 
organization  in  the  month  of  May,  A.D.  eighteen  hundred  and 
forty-five. 

And  in  respect  to  the  produce  or  profits,  such  share  or  part  as  the 
number  of  Annual  Conferences  which  formed  themselves  into  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  bore,  at  the  time  of  said  divis- 
ion, in  May,  A.D.  1845,  to  the  whole  number  of  Annual  Conferences 


*We  presume  there  is  an  omission  in  the  Report  of  the  words,  "the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church."— A.  H.  R.. 


APPENDIX.  659 

then  being  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  excluding  the  Liberia 
Conference;  so  that  the  division  or  apportionment  of  said  produce 
and  profits  shall  be  had  by  Conferences,  and  not  by  numbers  of  the 
traveling  preachers. 

7.  That  said  payment  of  capital  and  profits,  according  to  the  ratios 
of  apportionment  so  declared,  shall  be  made  and  paid  to  the  said 
Smith,  Parsons,  and  Green,  as  commissioners  aforesaid,  or  their  suc- 
cessors, on  behalf  of  said  Church,  South,  and  the  beneficiaries  therein, 
or  to  such  other  person  or  persons  as  may  be  thereto  authorized  by 
the  General  Conference  of  said  Church,  South,  the  same  to  be  subse- 
quently managed  and  administered  so  as  to  carry  out  the  trusts  and 
uses  aforesaid,  according  to  the  Discipline  of  said  Church,  South,  and 
the  regulations  of  the  General  Conference  thereof. 

8.  And  in  order  more  fully  to  carry  out  the  matters  hereinbefore 
settled  and  adjudged,  it  is  farther  ordered  and  decreed  that  this  cause 
be  remanded  to  the  said  Circuit  Court  for  farther  proceedings — that 
is  to  say. 

That  the  same  be  referred  to  a  master  to  take  and  state  an  account 
as  follows : 

1.  Of  the  amount  and  value  of  the  said  Book  Concern  at  Cincin- 
nati, on  the  first  day  of  May,  1845,  and  of  what  specific  property 
and  effects  (according  to  a  general  description  or  classification  thereof) 
the  same  then  consisted,  whether  composed  of  real  or  personal  estate, 
and  of  whatever  nature  or  description  the  same  may  have  been ; 
and  a  similar  account  as  of  the  date  or  time  when  the  said  master 
shall  take  this  account. 

2.  Of  the  produce  and  profits  of  said  Book  Concern  from  the  time 
of  the  General  Conference  of  May,  1844,  as  reported  thereto  (if  so 
reported),  up  to  the  time  of  the  said  division  in  May,  1845,  and  from 
the  last-mentioned  date  down  to  the  time  of  making  up  his  report: 
specifying  how  much  of  said  profits  and  produce  have  been  trans- 
ferred to  said  Book  Concern  at  New  York,  and  accounted  for  to  said 
Church,  South,  in  the  settlement  of  the  case  there ;  and  how  much 
remains  to  be  accounted  for  to  said  Church,  South,  on  the  basis  set- 
tled by  this  decree. 

And  in  taking  said  accounts,  and  in  the  execution  of  said  reference, 
the  said  defendants  shall  produce,  on  oath,  all  deeds,  accounts,  books 
of  account,  instruments,  reports,  letters,  and  copies  of  letters,  memo- 
randa, documents,  and  writings  whatever,  pertinent  to  said  reference, 
in  their  possession  or  control,  and  thv^j  said  defendants  may  be  ex- 
amined, on  oath,  on  the  said  reference ;  and  each  party  may  produce 


660  APPENDIX. 

evidence  before  the  master,  and  have  process  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses. 

And  the  said  master  is  farther  directed,  in  respect  to  any  annual 
profits  of  said  Concern,  not  heretofore  accounted  for  to  said  Church, 
South,  to  allow  to  said  Church,  South,  interest  at  the  rate  of  6  per 
cent,  upon  such  unpaid  balances  from  the  date  at  which  the  same 
ought  to  have  been  paid. 

And  in  respect  to  all  the  costs  in  this  case,  including  the  costs  of 
the  reference,  and  all  other  costs  from  the  commencement  of  the  case 
until  its  conclusion,  and  in  respect  to  the  fees  of  counsel  and  solicit- 
ors therein,  of  both  parties,  so  far  as  the  same  may  be  reasonable, 
and  in  respect  of  just  and  necessary  expenses,  as  well  of  plaintiffs  as 
of  defendants  in  conducting  the  suit,  the  same  ought  to  be  paid  out 
of  said  Book  Concern,  and  a  common  charge  thereon,  before  appor- 
tionment and  division,  and  the  master  is  accordingly  directed  to 
allow  and  pay  the  same  to  the  respective  parties  entitled  thereto, 
and  then  to  apportion  the  residue  according  to  the  principles  fixed  in 
this  decree. 

And  the  master  is  farther  directed  to  return  his  report  to  the  said 
Circuit  Court  with  all  convenient  dispatch,  which  court  shall  then 
proceed  to  enforce  the  payment  of  whatever  sum  or  sums  may  be 
found  due  to  said  Church,  South,  on  the  confirmation  of  the  master's 
report,  in  such  installments  as  may  be  by  said  court  adjudged  reason- 
able, each  party  having  due  opportunity  of  excepting  to  the  master's 
report ;  and  all  questions  arising  upon  said  report,  and  not  settled  by 
this  decree,  may  be  moved  before  said  Circuit  Court,  to  which  court 
either  party  shall  be  at  liberty  to  apply  on  the  footing  of  this  decree. 
17  H.  591;  18  H.  480. 


THE  END. 


1 
COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY   LIBRARIES 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing,  as 
provided  by  the  library  rules  or  by  special  arrangement  with 
the  Librarian  in  charge. 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

'^OV  I  ^  ''^^ 

•"■ 

■  i  ( 

\ 

1 

t 

) 

C28(n49)  100M 

._i 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


w%. 


